Whether a guilty plea should be vacated when the underlying plea bargain contains an error of law (an illegal sentence) at its core

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Mr. Bartoli was initially indicted in 2003 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio at Akron. A plea agreement was filed July 13, 2016, which reflected the wrong statutory maximum sentences. Neither the AUSA, defense counsel, nor the court recognized this mistake. The district court initially imposed a sentence that exceeds the maximum statutory sentence for Counts Two, Four and Five. During the initial appeal, none of the issues presented by then appellate counsel addressed the illegal sentence. Thus, the Sixth Circuit affirmed Mr. Bartoli’s conviction and sentence. Bartoli filed a petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255, arguing that he received ineffective assistance of counsel throughout this entire case which resulted in an incorrect and illegal sentence. He also accurately claimed that the case is tainted by prosecutorial confusion or negligence, and erroneous findings by the district court resulting in sentences that exceed statutory maximums. The government conceded that the original sentence was in fact illegal. The court vacated the original sentence and ordered resentencing, but affirmed Mr. Bartoli’s conviction. Upon resentencing, Mr. Bartoli’s sentencing hearing was again marked by government misstatements concerning the statutory maximums which were again erroneously adopted by the district court. For a second time, the same district court imposed illegal sentences more than the statutory maximums allowed for Counts Four and Five. Mr. Bartoli sought to withdraw his guilty plea (which was denied), and again appealed to the Sixth Circuit. The appeals Court vacated Bartoli’s i sentence, finding “it was imposed in violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause for the second time.” Unfortunately, the court decided to “withhold review of Bartoli’s other habeas claims and cabin relief to his illegal sentencing claim” and thereby allowed his plea bargain to an illegal sentence and conviction to remain. With this backdrop in mind, this appeal presents the following question to this Court: Whether a guilty plea should be vacated when the underlying plea bargain contains an error of law (an illegal sentence) at its core. ii