Jeremy Dustin Papke was indicted in the Northern District of Oklahoma on three counts of sexual abuse involving a child. The charges carried starkly different penalties, ranging from two years to a fifteen-year mandatory minimum up to life imprisonment.
After the district court rejected the first plea agreement, the parties negotiated a second under which Papke would plead guilty to two counts, with a maximum exposure of seventeen years, in exchange for dismissal of the most serious charge. The agreement did not stipulate any sentence, leaving full discretion to the court within statutory limits. The guardian ad litem, the government, and the victim’s family all supported the deal.
The district court rejected the plea, however, reasoning that it unduly limited sentencing discretion by removing the count carrying a life maximum. The court later accepted a third plea agreement under which Papke pleaded guilty to all counts and sentenced him to 235 months in prison.
On appeal, Papke argued the district court erred in rejecting the first two plea deals. The government conceded that the rejection of the second plea was improper.
The Tenth Circuit agreed, vacating the defendant’s conviction and sentence. The court explained that different plea types implicate different judicial powers. Prosecutors retain discretion to dismiss charges as part of plea negotiations, known as “charge bargaining,” and separation of powers requires judicial deference to such decisions. The district court misclassified the second agreement as a “hybrid” bargain, rather than a charge bargain, and rejected it with “scant analysis,” asserting that the government failed to provide the court “some latitude” in sentencing.
Accordingly, the district court abused its discretion by failing to defer to the government’s decision to drop certain charges. By contrast, the court permissibly rejected the first agreement because it adequately explained why it believed that the plea insufficiently punished Papke for his conduct.
The panel vacated Papke’s convictions and sentence and remanded for reconsideration of the second agreement, but declined to reassign the case to a different judge as requested by Papke.
Appeal from the Northern District of Oklahoma.
Opinion by McHugh, joined by Eid and Federico.