Opinion
No. 1:02-CR-127
May 2, 2003.
ORDER
Before the Court is the parties' Joint Motion to Accept Guilty Plea (Court File No. 69) filed on May 1, 2003. Although the joint motion is styled as seeking the Court's approval of a plea of guilty by Defendant, the text of the motion demonstrates what is actually sought is approval of a plea agreement. For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS Defendant permission to enter a plea of guilty but DENIES the joint motion in so far as it seeks acceptance of the plea agreement.
By Order of this Court entered on April 4, 2003 (Court File No. 65), the Court set a deadline for the execution of any plea agreement of April 11, 2003. According to the joint motion the parties entered into the plea agreement on April 22, 2003. Setting such deadlines is the standard practice in this district and is widely practiced in many districts across the country. United States v. Allen, 2002 WL 31890920 (6th Cir. Dec. 26, 2002) (unpublished); United States v. Robertson, 2002 WL 1773302 (10th Cir. Aug. 2, 2002) (unpublished); United States v. Vargas Lopez, 2000 WL 1728114 (9th Cir. Aug. 25, 2000) (unpublished). Courts may reject guilty pleas that are tendered after a deadline is set by the court. United States v. Moore, 916 F.2d 1131, 1136 n. 11 (6th Cir. 1990); United States v. Gamboa, 166 F.3d 1327, 1331 (11th Cir. 1998).
The decision whether to accept or reject a tendered plea of guilty is committed to the sound discretion of the district court. Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257, 262, 92 S.Ct. 495, 498, 30 L.Ed.2d 427 (1971) (citing Lynch v. Overholser, 369 U.S. 705, 719, 82 S.Ct. 1063, 1072, 8 L.Ed.2d 211 (1962)); United States v. Yates, 698 F.2d 828, 829-30 (6th Cir. 1983). However, it is an abuse of discretion for a court to reject a guilty plea without articulating a reason. Moore, 916 F.2d at 1135.
Defendant has a right to enter a plea of guilty so long as the plea is knowing and voluntary. The Court knows of no reason why such a plea would not be knowing and voluntary so it will accept a guilty plea from Defendant.
However, the plea agreement was not executed within the deadline set by the Court. For that reason the Court will not accept the tendered plea agreement. The only reason provided in the joint motion for the Court to accept the tardy agreement is because Defendant's counsel did not receive a copy of the scheduling order apprising him of the plea agreement deadline. A plea agreement, however, is between two parties. In order for lack of notice to be a sufficient excuse for missing the plea deadline both parties would have to have been unaware of the deadline. From an earlier hearing in this case it is established the Government knew of the deadline. Moreover, it is common knowledge that the Court consistently sets plea deadlines approximately three to four weeks before the scheduled trial date. Counsel would have been on notice that his case would have a trial date and a plea agreement deadline. Discussions with the Government or a simple resort to the Court's website would have shown the trial date and final pretrial conference deadline. From these two deadlines the plea deadline could have been surmised.
Accordingly, the Court does not find the proffered reason a justification for not enforcing the plea deadline.
The parties also represent the plea agreement in this case will be beneficial to Defendant because it will demonstrate she has accepted responsibility for her offense. The existence of a guilty plea, however, is not a consideration in determining acceptance of responsibility under standards set forth in the United States Sentencing Commission Guidelines. See U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1. It is common for defendants to enter guilty pleas without plea agreements and the Court routinely assigns the defendants in those cases acceptance of responsibility.
The Court sets plea agreement deadlines in order to provide for the efficient administration of justice and the efficient use of the Court's limited resources. If parties were able to simply ignore these deadlines, many valuable Court resources would be wasted in preparing for trials that will never take place. As the parties have not provided sufficient reasons for their delay in filing the plea agreement, the Court DENIES their motion in so far as they seek to have the Court accept the delinquent plea agreement.
The Court wants to emphasize, however, Defendant is free to plead guilty without the benefit of a plea agreement. By this decision the Court takes no position on whether Defendant should plead guilty or should proceed to trial. The Court simply rejects the parties' proposed plea agreement as untimely.
SO ORDERED.