941 F.3d 234
6th Cir.2019Background
- Early morning incidents: Williams and accomplices carjacked occupants of a Chevy Cruz; later Williams and a juvenile (masked, hoodies) entered a credit union where the juvenile carried an AR-15 and announced a robbery. An armed security guard drew a weapon; the juvenile dropped the AR-15 and fled with Williams. All were arrested.
- Indictment charged Williams (and co-defendants) with: Count 1 — attempted armed credit union robbery (18 U.S.C. §§ 2113(a),(d),(g) and § 2); Count 2 — brandishing a firearm during that offense (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)); Count 3 — carjacking (18 U.S.C. § 2119(1)); Count 4 — brandishing a firearm during the carjacking (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)).
- Williams pleaded guilty to all four counts pursuant to a written plea agreement and was sentenced to 205 months’ imprisonment plus five years supervised release.
- On timely appeal Williams argued the district court violated Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 by: (1) failing to advise him about the accomplice (§ 2 / aiding-and-abetting) element for Count 1; and (2) failing to establish a factual basis for the dangerous-weapon element of Count 1.
- Williams did not object at the plea hearing, so the Sixth Circuit reviewed under the plain-error standard. The plea colloquy included the prosecutor reading the elements and the plea-agreement factual summary, and Williams affirmed the summary.
Issues
| Issue | Williams' Argument | Government/Court Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 11(b)(1)(G) required advising Williams about accomplice liability under § 2 for Count 1 | Count 1 effectively charged him as an accomplice; court needed to explain accomplice liability so he understood the nature of the charge | Aiding and abetting (§ 2) is a theory of liability embodied in indictments, not a separate crime; plea materials and colloquy informed Williams of relevant elements (including accomplice-based § 924(c) exposure) | No Rule 11 error; court not required to separately explain § 2; plea colloquy adequate |
| Whether Rule 11(b)(3) required a factual basis showing Williams used or put life in jeopardy by a dangerous weapon for Count 1 | Prosecutor’s factual summary failed to tie a dangerous weapon to Williams (it described the juvenile’s AR-15 but not Williams’ conduct) | Prosecutor read plea-agreement factual basis describing the juvenile’s AR-15, the robbery announcement, guard drawing weapon, and flight; Williams agreed that summary matched his conduct | Sufficient factual basis for the dangerous-weapon element; no Rule 11 error |
| Whether plain-error review requires vacatur/remand | Errors were plain and affected substantial rights, so pleas should be vacated and remanded | Williams did not preserve objections; record shows no plain (obvious) error and substantial-rights standard not met | Failed to show plain error; conviction affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55 (2002) (preservation and plain-error review for Rule 11 objections)
- United States v. Taylor, 627 F.3d 1012 (6th Cir. 2010) (plain-error standard application)
- United States v. McCreary-Redd, 475 F.3d 718 (6th Cir. 2007) (Rule 11 factual-basis and plain-error framework)
- United States v. Valdez, 362 F.3d 903 (6th Cir. 2004) (defendant must understand critical elements of offense)
- United States v. McGee, 529 F.3d 691 (6th Cir. 2008) (aiding-and-abetting is theory of liability embodied in indictments)
- United States v. Camacho, 233 F.3d 1308 (11th Cir. 2000) (no requirement to explain aiding-and-abetting at plea colloquy)
- United States v. Tunning, 69 F.3d 107 (6th Cir. 1995) (sources a court may use to find factual basis for a plea)
- United States v. Superior Growers Supply, Inc., 982 F.2d 173 (6th Cir. 1992) (§ 2 does not create a separate substantive crime)