United States v. Hyde, 520 U.S. 670, 2 (1997)

Page:   Index   Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next

Cite as: 520 U. S. 670 (1997)

Opinion of the Court

In addition, the holding would allow little, if any, time for the "fair and just reason" standard to apply, for a court's decision to accept a plea agreement is often made at the sentencing hearing. Respondent's arguments—that the "fair and just reason" standard was not meant to apply to guilty pleas conditioned on acceptance of the plea agreement, and that the Advisory Committee's Notes to Rule 32(b)(3) support the Court of Appeals' holding—are rejected. Pp. 673-680.

92 F. 3d 779, reversed.

Rehnquist, C. J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.

James A. Feldman argued the cause for the United States. With him on the briefs were Acting Solicitor General Del-linger, Acting Assistant Attorney General Richard, Deputy Solicitor General Dreeben, and Patty Merkamp Stemler.

Jonathan D. Soglin, by appointment of the Court, 519 U. S. 1106, argued the cause and filed a brief for respondent.*

Chief Justice Rehnquist delivered the opinion of the Court.

Rule 32(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure states that a district court may allow a defendant to withdraw his guilty plea before he is sentenced "if the defendant shows any fair and just reason." After the defendant in this case pleaded guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, the District Court accepted his plea but deferred decision on whether to accept the plea agreement. The defendant then sought to withdraw his plea. We hold that in such circumstances a defendant may not withdraw his plea unless he shows a "fair and just reason" under Rule 32(e).

A federal grand jury indicted respondent Robert Hyde on eight counts of mail fraud, wire fraud, and other fraud-related crimes. On the morning of his trial, respondent indicated his desire to enter plea negotiations with the Government. Those negotiations produced a plea agreement

*Lisa Kemler filed a brief for the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers as amicus curiae urging affirmance.

671

Page:   Index   Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next

Last modified: October 4, 2007