42 F.4th 460
4th Cir.2022Background
- In 2014 Heyward shot and killed a person; he had a 2006 South Carolina conviction (pleaded misdemeanor with a suspended one-year sentence and six months probation) that the Government later used to charge him under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
- Heyward pleaded guilty in federal court in 2017 to being a felon in possession; during his plea colloquy the court did not advise him that the Government must prove he knew of his qualifying-status at the time of possession (the Rehaif knowledge-of-status element).
- Neither Heyward nor his counsel objected at the Rule 11 colloquy; the district court accepted the plea and sentenced him to 120 months’ imprisonment.
- After the Supreme Court decided Rehaif v. United States and later Greer v. United States, Heyward raised a Rehaif plain-error claim on appeal arguing that, had he been advised of the knowledge-of-status element, there is a reasonable probability he would have gone to trial.
- The appellate record contained (1) Heyward’s statements in a state hearing and at his change-of-plea that suggest he thought he had pleaded to a misdemeanor and may not have understood the federal consequences, and (2) a sentencing letter where he stated he believed he had only misdemeanors and was a “prohibited person.”
- The panel concluded the Rule 11 omission was plain and—on the whole record—found Heyward met the difficult plain-error showing that he would reasonably have chosen to go to trial; the majority vacated and remanded. Judge Agee dissented, arguing the record and supplemental evidence showed Heyward admitted his felon status and that the Government should have been allowed to supplement the record.
Issues
| Issue | Heyward’s Argument | Government’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether omission of the Rehaif knowledge-of-status element in the plea colloquy is plain error | The omission was an error that is plain on appellate review after Rehaif | Conceded error; argued other prongs fail | Yes — the omission is plain at time of appellate review (majority) |
| Whether Heyward showed the omission affected his substantial rights (reasonable probability he would have gone to trial) | Heyward contends he consistently denied knowing his prior conviction made him a felon and would likely have gone to trial if told of the element | Govt. points to Heyward’s sworn admission at plea colloquy, PSR, and other record evidence implying he knew his status | Yes (majority): on the full record, Heyward met the heavy burden and showed a reasonable probability he would not have pled; dissent says no |
| Whether the Rehaif omission seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of proceedings (discretionary prong) | The plea was entered without informing Heyward of a material element; that undermines plea integrity here | Govt. urges deference to plea and that evidence shows no prejudice; also urged supplementation to rebut Heyward | Yes (majority exercised discretion to correct error); dissent would deny relief |
| Whether the Government’s post‑trial supplemental appendix may be considered on appeal | Heyward opposed supplementation; argued facts should be developed in district court | Govt. moved to supplement under Fed. R. App. P. 10(e) to supply evidence relevant to Rehaif plain‑error analysis | No (majority): declined to consider supplemental materials not in district record; dissent would have allowed them and relied on them to deny relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019) (establishes that the Government must prove the defendant knew of his forbidden status under § 922(g))
- Greer v. United States, 141 S. Ct. 2090 (2021) (sets plain‑error framework for Rehaif challenges to guilty pleas and explains burden to show reasonable probability of going to trial)
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (plain‑error review requirements)
- Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (2009) (explains difficulty of meeting plain‑error standard)
- United States v. Langley, 62 F.3d 602 (4th Cir. 1995) (pre‑Rehaif precedent holding Government need not prove knowledge of status; later abrogated by Rehaif)
- United States v. Moody, 2 F.4th 180 (4th Cir. 2021) (explains Rehaif requires proof of knowledge of facts giving rise to status, not knowledge that the status makes firearm possession unlawful)
- Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63 (1977) (sworn statements in plea colloquy carry strong presumption of verity)
- Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (1969) (guilty plea is a conviction and requires being informed of rights; integrity of plea process emphasized)