United States v. Dontreaun Tremayne Alexander
682 F. App'x 873
11th Cir.2017Background
- Defendant Dontreaun Alexander pleaded guilty to Hobbs Act robbery (18 U.S.C. § 1951(a)) and brandishing a firearm during a robbery (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)).
- He did not move to withdraw his guilty plea and raised challenges to the plea for the first time on appeal.
- At the plea colloquy Alexander confirmed he had reviewed the case with counsel, understood the charges and consequences, was not coerced, and agreed the written factual statement accurately described his conduct.
- The plea agreement and indictment recited the elements of the offenses; Alexander declined the court’s invitation to ask about any words he did not understand.
- Alexander admitted entering a Circle K with a firearm, attempting to take cash from the safe/register, being foiled by the cashier, and that the store—engaged in interstate commerce—shut down for several hours, disrupting interstate commerce.
- On appeal the court reviewed for plain error because Alexander failed to preserve his Rule 11 and factual-basis challenges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Alexander) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 11 required the district court to explain the element of "interstate commerce" | District court erred by not explaining interstate-commerce element during plea colloquy | Rule 11 does not require such an explanation; plea record otherwise adequate | No plain error; Rule 11 imposes no such obligation and record showed understanding |
| Whether there was an adequate factual basis for the pleas | Insufficient factual basis to show effect on interstate commerce | Guilty plea and factual statement establish the minimal interstate-commerce effect | No plain error; admitted facts supported minimal effect on interstate commerce |
| Whether guilty plea waived challenge to factual basis | Alexander asserted challenge despite plea | Government argued waiver by guilty plea | Court considered the challenge (precedent allows it) and rejected it on the merits |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Rodriguez, 751 F.3d 1244 (11th Cir. 2014) (discusses Rule 11 obligations and plain-error standard)
- United States v. Siegel, 102 F.3d 477 (11th Cir. 1996) (court may rely on plea colloquy to find defendant understood admissions)
- United States v. Puentes-Hurtado, 794 F.3d 1278 (11th Cir. 2015) (knowing, voluntary plea does not always bar challenge to factual basis)
- United States v. Rodriguez, 218 F.3d 1243 (11th Cir. 2000) (minimal effect on interstate commerce can satisfy Hobbs Act jurisdictional element)
- United States v. Ransfer, 749 F.3d 914 (11th Cir. 2014) (store disruptions can support interstate-commerce effect)
- United States v. Dean, 517 F.3d 1224 (11th Cir. 2008) (same)
We AFFIRM Alexander’s convictions.