Whether the government breaches the bargain of a plea agreement by requesting a minimum sentencing level fifteen years longer than what it had explicitly agreed upon in a Plea Agreement

QUESTION PRESENTED Plea bargaining “is an essential component of the administration of justice.” Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 (1971). This essential part of the criminal justice system “presupposes fairness in securing agreement between an accused and a prosecutor.” Id at 261. “Waivers of constitutional rights ... must be knowing, intelligent acts done with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences.” Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742, 748, 90 5. Ct. 1468, 25 L. Ed.2d 747 (1970). The Sixth Circuit incorrectly decided this case that addresses the important issue surrounding a sentencing term of a plea agreement whereby the United States entices a criminal defendant to sign a plea agreement where it is agreed by the parties that the minimum sentencing level will be “not be less than 300 months.” At sentencing, however, the prosecutor repeatedly requests the court to sentence Bradner to a sentence of “no less than 40 years,” or 480 months (the equivalent of a life sentence). The prosecutor was not free to argue for a higher minimum sentencing level over and above 300 months. Nevertheless, it did. As a result, the government's breach of the plea agreement likely added 180 months to Bradner’s sentence when he was ultimately sentenced to 480 months. Against this backdrop, the following question is presented to this Court: Whether the government breaches the bargain of a plea agreement by requesting a minimum sentencing level fifteen years longer than what it had explicitly agreed upon in a Plea Agreement. ii