United States of America v. Cody Lee Spencer

Date: 11-03-2025

Case Number: 22-CR-253

Judge: Robert Pitman

Court: United States District Court for the Western District of Texas (Travis County)

Plaintiff's Attorney: United States District Attorney’s Office in Austin

Defendant's Attorney:

Description: Austin, Texas, criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant charged with: Possession with Intent to Distribute a Substance.

“Whether the Government has breached a plea agreement is a
question of law that this Court reviews de novo,” so long as the issue was
preserved, as it was here. United States v. Purser, 747 F.3d 284, 290 (5th Cir.
2014); United States v. Malmquist, 92 F.4th 555, 562 (5th Cir. 2024). While
general contract principles apply to plea agreements, “the government must
strictly adhere to the terms and conditions of its promises” as the defendant
reasonably understood them. United States v. Valencia, 985 F.2d 758, 760–61
(5th Cir. 1993). Promises that “can be said to be part of the inducement or
consideration . . . must be fulfilled.” Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257,
262 (1971).

While “[t]he defendant has the burden of demonstrating the
underlying facts that establish the breach by a preponderance of the
evidence,” the facts here are not in dispute. Purser, 747 F.3d at 290. On
October 4, 2022, DEA Task Force Officers arrested Cody Lee Spencer and
co-defendant Natalie Williams after Spencer sold an ounce of cocaine to an
officer during a buy/bust operation. Though Spencer initially cooperated, he
fled the state after being released from custody. He was apprehended about
a month later and has remained in custody since.

In January 2024, after fourteen months in custody, Spencer and the
Government reached a plea agreement. The face of the written agreement
did not include any terms that would affect Spencer’s sentencing. However,
in the cover e-mails to the agreement, defense counsel memorialized a
conversation with the Assistant United States Attorney, “confirm[ing their]
agreement that, unless Mr. Spencer violates conditions, . . . the Government
will file a [§ 5K1.1] motion based upon Mr. Spencer’s prior cooperation and
information, and his agreement to testify at the upcoming Natalie Williams
trial.” Spencer agreed to sign “[i]n reliance upon [this] agreement.” The
AUSA responded affirmatively.

Outcome: Vacated and remanded for resentencing.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: