SCOTT KERNAN v. MICHAEL DANIEL CUERO
US Supreme Court, Per Curiam, Nov. 6, 2017,
Plea Bargains- AEDPA – In the event of a breached plea bargain, the Supreme Court has never required specific performance of the deal most favorable to the defendant.

Facts:
In 2005, Cuero was charged with two felonies and a misdemeanor in California related to a car collision he caused while under the influence of methamphetamine and carrying a pistol.
Cuero entered into a plea agreement, admitting that he had four prior convictions and that one of them qualified as a “strike” under California law. The agreement noted that he “may receive this maximum punishment…: 14 years, 4 months.”
Prior to sentencing, the prosecution realized that Cuero actually had two strikes. This raised his sentence to a minimum of 25 years. The prosecution moved to amend the charges and the court allowed Cuero to withdraw his guilty plea. Cuero did so, entered into a new plea, and was sentenced to a term of 25 years to life.
Cuero then appealed, arguing that the court should have been forced to abide by his original plea deal.
California courts affirmed his conviction.
Cuero then filed in federal courts seeking habeas relief.
The 9th Circuit agreed with Cuero, holding that under “clearly established federal law” the defendant was entitled to specific performance of his plea deal.
California then requested review by the US Supreme Court, arguing that a defendant is not entitled to specific performance of a withdrawn plea agreement.

Held: The Supreme Court agreed with California. The Supreme Court has never said that a breached plea agreement results in the defendant receiving specific performance.

Plea Agreements- While the Supreme Court has allowed specific performance of a breached plea agreement, it is not required and courts have the power to determine the appropriate remedy