United States v. Daniel Sesan Leitch
702 F. App'x 557
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Daniel Leitch convicted and sentenced for receipt or distribution of child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2).
- Leitch appealed, arguing the district court failed during the plea colloquy to advise him of the five-year mandatory minimum and the supervised-release ranges required by Rule 11.
- He also argued the court erred by not obtaining a written jury-waiver under Rule 23 before proceeding to a bench trial.
- Leitch did not raise the Rule 11 deficiencies below; the court therefore reviewed those claims for plain error and reviewed the jury-waiver adequacy de novo.
- The record showed Leitch had been advised of imprisonment and supervised-release ranges on several prior occasions before changing his plea, and he gave an oral waiver of a jury trial in open court.
- The Ninth Circuit concluded the plea-colloquy omissions were plain error but did not affect substantial rights, and that the oral jury waiver was knowing and sufficient, so it affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failure to advise mandatory minimum and supervised-release ranges at plea colloquy (Rule 11) | Court failed to inform Leitch of the five-year mandatory minimum and supervised-release ranges during plea; this invalidates the plea | Any Rule 11 error was harmless because Leitch had been accurately advised of penalties on several prior occasions | Error was plain but did not affect substantial rights; no relief under plain-error review |
| Adequacy of jury-trial waiver (Rule 23) | Court erred by not obtaining a written jury waiver as Rule 23 requires | Oral waiver in open court was knowing and intelligent and therefore sufficient despite lack of written waiver | Oral waiver was knowing and intelligent; waiver sufficient; no reversal |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Benz, 472 F.3d 657 (9th Cir. 2006) (plain-error standard summarized)
- United States v. Borowy, 595 F.3d 1045 (9th Cir. 2010) (reasonable-probability test for prejudice in plea colloquy errors)
- United States v. Monzon, 429 F.3d 1268 (9th Cir. 2005) (same reasonable-probability standard for plea withdrawal)
- United States v. Shorty, 741 F.3d 961 (9th Cir. 2013) (standard for reviewing adequacy of jury-waiver)
- United States v. Saadya, 750 F.2d 1419 (9th Cir. 1985) (oral waiver may suffice where record shows knowing, intelligent consent)
- United States v. Reyes, 603 F.2d 69 (9th Cir. 1979) (oral waiver sufficiency described)