United States v. Culbertson
670 F.3d 183
| 2d Cir. | 2012Background
- Culbertson pleaded guilty to four counts, including conspiracy to import 100 grams+ heroin and 5 kilograms+ cocaine; sentenced to 120 months.
- Culbertson appeals alleging (i) lack of adequate factual basis for the plea regarding drug quantity, (ii) denial of Sixth Amendment counsel, including denial of new counsel and standby counsel.
- Pre-plea, the court told Culbertson he could proceed pro se or with standby counsel; Culbertson protested and sought counsel.
- At the January 21, 2009 plea, Culbertson reserved rights to a hearing on drug quantity, but the government proffered Lancaster carried over 5 kg cocaine; Culbertson denied agreeing to quantities above 3 kg.
- The court accepted the plea after an allocution in which Culbertson consistently asserted responsibility for 3 kg; sentencing later relied on a 5 kg minimum.
- The court later denied a Fatico hearing and sentenced based on the 5 kg minimum; on appeal, the court remanded to vacate the judgment and address the Rule 11(b)(3) deficiency and potential Faretta hearing on remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there an adequate factual basis for the guilty plea on drug quantity under Rule 11(b)(3)? | Culbertson | Culbertson insisted on 3 kg and disputed 5 kg; plea lacked basis. | Remand to vacate conviction; inadequate factual basis. |
| Should the case be remanded for a Faretta hearing on counsel issues if the district court denies new counsel? | Culbertson | District court failed to inform him of consequences of self-representation. | Remand for Faretta hearing; district may appoint new counsel if appropriate. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Adams, 448 F.3d 492 (2d Cir. 2006) ( Rule 11(b)(3) failure when quantity contested; adequacy of factual basis explored)
- United States v. Gonzalez, 420 F.3d 111 (2d Cir. 2005) (allocation must establish knowledge/foreseeability of drug quantity for conspiracy)
- United States v. Andino, 627 F.3d 41 (2d Cir. 2010) (direct participation not dispositive; need foreseeability for conspiracy charges)
- United States v. Maher, 108 F.3d 1513 (2d Cir. 1997) (Rule 11 basis may rely on various representations; improper if element disputed)
- United States v. Navedo, 516 F.2d 293 (2d Cir. 1975) (plea invalid if defendant denied knowledge/participation in conspiracy)
- Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975) (right to self-representation requires knowing waiver and capacity to decide)
- United States v. Hurtado, 47 F.3d 577 (2d Cir. 1995) (courts must ensure defendant understands consequences of self-representation)
- United States v. Tracy, 12 F.3d 1186 (2d Cir. 1993) (need on-record discussion to ensure defendant understands representation choice)