## Facts

- Devin Hodge was federally indicted in the District Court of the Virgin Islands for first-degree murder of a jewelry store owner in St. Thomas and related theft offenses; his brother, Irvine Hodge, and a third defendant were also charged.
- Devin entered plea negotiations with the government and ultimately agreed to plead guilty to first-degree murder and related charges under a written plea agreement.
- The government’s offer was expressly a “lock” (package) plea: each brother’s plea was a condition of the government’s acceptance of the other’s plea.
- The government communicated that if both brothers accepted the package, it would recommend (1) a sentence at the low end of the applicable Guidelines range and (2) the maximum three-level reduction for extraordinary acceptance of responsibility.
- At a joint proceeding, the district court accepted the pleas and sentenced both brothers to life imprisonment.
- At sentencing, Devin contended the government did not make the promised sentencing recommendations.
- Devin also contended his guilty plea was invalid because the Rule 11 colloquy did not account for the package nature of the plea, which was not disclosed to the district court.

## Issues

1. Whether the government breached the plea agreement by failing to make the promised sentencing recommendations (including a low-end Guidelines recommendation and a three-level acceptance-of-responsibility reduction).
2. Whether the district court plainly erred under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 by accepting Devin’s plea without being informed it was a package deal and without conducting additional voluntariness inquiry.

## Decision

- The Third Circuit held the government breached the plea agreement and vacated Devin’s sentence.
- The court remanded for either resentencing consistent with the government’s obligations or withdrawal of the guilty plea, at Devin’s option.
- The court held the district court did not plainly err in conducting the Rule 11 plea colloquy, despite the package plea not being disclosed at the time.
- The court provided guidance for future cases that package-deal terms should be disclosed and that judges should probe voluntariness with added care when pleas are contingent on co-defendants’ decisions.

## Legal Principles

- Plea agreements are interpreted according to what the defendant reasonably understood when entering the plea; the government must strictly perform promises that induced the plea.
- Government conduct at sentencing that is inconsistent with the defendant’s reasonable understanding of promised advocacy constitutes a breach.
- Package (lock) pleas are not per se invalid, but they raise heightened concerns about coercion and require careful judicial inquiry into voluntariness when the arrangement is disclosed.
- Unpreserved Rule 11 challenges are reviewed for plain error; relief requires a showing of an error affecting substantial rights.
- Remedies for government breach of a plea agreement typically include specific performance (resentencing, often before a different judge) or allowing the defendant to withdraw the plea.

## Conclusion

The Third Circuit vacated Devin Hodge’s life sentence because the government failed to honor sentencing recommendations that Devin reasonably understood were part of the package plea inducement, and remanded for resentencing or plea withdrawal, while rejecting—under plain-error review—his claim that the Rule 11 colloquy was invalid solely due to the undisclosed package nature of the pleas.


United States v. Hodge, 412 F.3d 479 (3d Cir. 2005)