United States v. Derrick Harrell, Corwin Dantzle
751 F.3d 1235
11th Cir.2014Background
- Harrell and Dantzle were charged with Hobbs Act robberies of a Walgreens and a McDonald’s and related firearms offenses under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c).
- Harrell pleaded guilty to the charges with a stipulated 25-year sentence; the government would not offer a deal at or below 32 years for Harrell’s co-defendant status.
- Dantzle went to trial and was convicted on conspiracy to commit robbery, two robberies, and the two § 924(c) counts, receiving 401 months overall.
- The district court engaged in extensive plea discussions with the parties before Harrell’s plea, and then accepted that plea; after reversal, the case was remanded and reassigned.
- The Eleventh Circuit held that the district court’s participation in plea negotiations violated Rule 11(c)(1) and that Harrell could withdraw his guilty plea; the court also held that the district court abused its discretion by admitting cell-tower/phone expert testimony but that the error was harmless for Dantzle, affirming in part and vacating/remanding in part.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rule 11(c)(1) violation by the district court | Harrell argues the court improperly participated in plea negotiations | - | Rule 11(c)(1) violated; reversible plain error; Harrell vacated and remanded for withdrawal of plea and reassignment |
| Effect of Rule 11(c)(1) violation on Harrell’s substantial rights | The district court’s involvement affected Harrell’s decision to plead | The government and Harrell had discussions independent of the court | Error affected substantial rights; Harrell may withdraw plea and the case is reassigned |
| Admission of Detect. Jacobs as expert on cell towers | Jacobs testimony was properly admitted as lay testimony | District court abused discretion by certifying him as an expert without proper foundation | Abuse of discretion in labeling/testifying as expert; harmless error; no reversal of Dantzle’s conviction baseline |
| Overall impact of evidentiary error on Dantzle’s conviction/sentence | - | - | Harmless error; convictions/sentences for Dantzle affirmed in part, remanded in part, vacated for Harrell as described |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Johnson, 89 F.3d 778 (11th Cir. 1996) (bright-line rule prohibiting judicial participation in plea negotiations)
- United States v. Tobin, 676 F.3d 1264 (11th Cir. 2012) (judicial participation in plea discussions is prohibited; no exceptions)
- United States v. Davila, 133 S. Ct. 2139 (S. Ct. 2013) (prevalence of prejudice from Rule 11(c)(1) violation; depends on record)
- Castro v. United States, 736 F.3d 1308 (11th Cir. 2013) (considerations for whether violation affects voluntariness of plea)
- Diaz, 138 F.3d 1359 (11th Cir. 1998) (violation when judge participates before plea is reached)