United States v. Bryant Monie
858 F.3d 1029
6th Cir.2017Background
- Monie pleaded guilty to Counts 1 (conspiracy) and 8 (ACCA felony firearm) without a written plea agreement; he was tried and convicted on Counts 6 and 7.
- Count 8 was an Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) offense carrying a 15-year mandatory minimum and life maximum, but at rearraignment the district court misstated the penalty as a 10-year maximum and did not inform Monie of any mandatory minimum.
- The 15-year mandatory minimum on Count 8 drove the Guidelines for Counts 1 and 6 and combined with a consecutive 5-year mandatory term on Count 7 to produce a 20-year mandatory sentence. The district court sentenced Monie to 20 years.
- The Presentence Report, prepared after plea and trial, correctly listed the 15-year mandatory minimum for Count 8. There is no record that Monie knew of the mandatory minimum before pleading.
- Monie did not object at the plea hearing or move to withdraw the plea in district court; he now seeks relief on plain-error review, arguing the Rule 11 colloquy error was plain and affected his substantial rights and the integrity of the proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court’s failure to inform Monie of the 15-year mandatory minimum under Rule 11 was error | Monie: the court misstated penalty as 10 years and omitted mandatory minimum, violating Rule 11 | Gov’t: concedes error was obvious but disputes that error affected substantial rights or integrity | Error was plain and violated Rule 11 |
| Whether Monie showed the error affected his substantial rights (reasonable probability he would not have pleaded) | Monie: no pre-plea notice, proceeded to trial on other count showing willingness to litigate, and erroneous info dramatically altered sentencing stakes | Gov’t: Monie didn’t move to withdraw in district court and likely would have been convicted, so no reasonable probability | Court: Monie established reasonable probability he would not have pled absent error; substantial rights affected |
| Whether the error seriously affected fairness, integrity, or public reputation of proceedings | Monie: plea was not knowing/voluntary because he believed max was 10 years though min was 15 | Gov’t: strong evidence of guilt means no miscarriage of justice | Court: even with strong evidence, erroneous colloquy undermined voluntariness; fairness/integrity seriously affected |
| Remedy: appropriate relief if Rule 11 plain error established | Monie: permit withdrawal of plea as to Count 8 and vacate sentence | Gov’t: opposed or argued minimal impact | Court: remand, allow withdrawal of guilty plea to Count 8, vacate entire sentence, and hold further proceedings consistent with opinion |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Mobley, 618 F.3d 539 (6th Cir. 2010) (plain-error review framework for Rule 11 forfeited objections)
- Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (2009) (definition of plain error standard)
- United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74 (2004) (reasonable-probability test for showing Rule 11 error affected substantial rights)
- United States v. Hogg, 723 F.3d 730 (6th Cir. 2013) (analysis of when Rule 11 errors affect substantial rights and integrity)
- United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55 (2002) (Rule 11 ensures pleas are knowing and voluntary; plain-error considerations)
- United States v. Rivera-Maldonado, 560 F.3d 16 (1st Cir. 2009) (erroneous info that dramatically alters sentencing stakes supports withdrawal)
- Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742 (1970) (plea must be voluntary and knowing)