Background
Paul Michael Oliver appealed the denial of his motion for return of property concerning five thousand eight hundred fifty dollars he agreed to forfeit as part of a plea agreement. Oliver argued that seizing funds from his inmate trust account to satisfy the forfeiture obligation breached the plea agreement because he reasonably believed the obligation would be satisfied by cash seized during his arrest in a related state case.
The court’s reasoning
The court found that the seizure was inconsistent with a reasonable understanding of the plea agreement. The amount seized during arrest differed from the amount Oliver agreed to forfeit as a representation of proceeds he would have obtained from his federal offense. The phrase would have obtained refers to a hypothetical amount of money that Oliver could have acquired but did not. Oliver failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the seizure breached the plea agreement. The court also determined the decision to deny the motion without a hearing was not an abuse of discretion.
What it means going forward
This ruling clarifies that defendants cannot rely on subjective assumptions about forfeiture provisions in plea agreements if those assumptions contradict the hypothetical nature of the agreed-upon forfeiture amount.