United States v. De Vaughn
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 18533
| 10th Cir. | 2012Background
- De Vaughn mailed twelve hoax anthrax letters to President Obama, four Senators, three Representatives, and two Argentine consulates; letters claimed to be anthrax but contained harmless powder.
- Charges included four counts of mailing threatening communications under 18 U.S.C. § 876(c), one count of mailing a threat to the President under § 871, and counts under § 1038(a)(1).
- Alabama information added three counts under § 1038(a)(1) for letters to Alabama congressional offices; Colorado information added seven counts; all were consolidated under Rule 20 and a single plea agreement was reached.
- Defendant pled guilty unconditionally to all charges, without reserving a right to appeal; district court imposed a total 72 months’ imprisonment served consecutively.
- Goverment challenged jurisdiction and argued the charging documents might not state offenses or that the statutes violated the First Amendment as applied to De Vaughn; these jurisdictional and merits issues frame the appeal.
- The court ultimately held jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirmed the convictions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the Alabama-set of charges fall within appellate jurisdiction? | Government argues lack of territorial/subject-matter jurisdiction over out-of-circuit charges. | Defendant asserts charging documents may not state offenses and thus the case may fall outside appellate reach. | Appellate jurisdiction exists; claims proceed on merits. |
| Do charging documents fail to state an offense and affect jurisdiction? | Indictsments/informations may fail to charge offenses under the statutes. | As-applied First Amendment challenges show the statutes do not reach his conduct. | Failure to state an offense is non-jurisdictional; plain-error review governs on appeal. |
| Is the as-applied First Amendment challenge to the threat/hoax statutes jurisdictional or waivable by a guilty plea? | Challenge relates to admissibility of the statutes as applied to De Vaughn's conduct. | As-applied First Amendment claims are argued to be jurisdictional or non-waivable. | Guilty plea does not deprive court of jurisdiction; but plain-error analysis applies and the plea's preclusive effect may be waived by the government. |
| Did the unconditional guilty plea moot the case or bar review of pre-plea defenses? | Guilty plea generally bars review of pre-plea issues. | Some circuits view unconditional guilty pleas as not depriving appellate jurisdiction for certain claims. | The court adopts a position that unconditional guilty plea does not deprive jurisdiction; government may waive the plea’s preclusive effect. |
| What is the appropriate standard of review for these charging and constitutional challenges? | Challenges should be reviewed de novo given jurisdictional concerns. | Plain-error review applies to forfeited claims under Rule 52(b). | Plain-error review governs unless the issue directly implicates jurisdiction; the court applies plain-error analysis to forfeited claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cotton v. United States, 535 U.S. 625 (2002) (defective indictments do not deprive a court of jurisdiction; plain-error review applies)
- Lamar v. United States, 240 U.S. 60 (1916) (indictment defect goes to merits; jurisdiction remains)
- Williams v. United States, 341 U.S. 58 (1951) (indictment defect does not deprive court of jurisdiction; merits-focused review)
- Blackledge v. Perry, 417 U.S. 21 (1974) (due process right not to be subjected to more serious charges after appeal; sets exception to plea effects)
- Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258 (1973) (guilty plea forecloses direct inquiry into antecedent constitutional violations)
- Menna v. New York, 423 U.S. 61 (1975) (double jeopardy claim may be raised despite guilty plea; exceptions exist)
- Broce v. United States, 488 U.S. 563 (1989) (guilty plea bars post-plea challenges except certain exceptions)
- United States v. Hahn, 359 F.3d 1315 (2004) (en banc; discusses mootness vs. jurisdiction in pleading context)
- Jacobo Castillo, 496 F.3d 947 (9th Cir. 2007) (unconditional guilty plea does not deprive court of jurisdiction; plea preclusion can be waived)
- United States v. Combs, 657 F.3d 565 (7th Cir. 2011) ( Seventh Circuit holds unconditional guilty plea deprives appellate jurisdiction)