United States v. Fred Thompson
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 20080
| 8th Cir. | 2014Background
- Thompson pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine and use of a firearm during a drug trafficking crime; district court sentenced him to 480 months on Count 1 and life on Count 2, consecutive.
- Indictment included two counts; a later §3559(c)(4) information sought life if Count 2 conviction occurred.
- Thompson reached a plea agreement to plead guilty to both counts in exchange for reducing Count 1 drug quantity and withdrawing the §3559 information, with an appeal waiver limited to ineffective assistance or sentence above guidelines.
- During the plea process, Thompson initially opted for trial; after a recess, he decided to plead guilty, and the court conducted a plea colloquy; the court stated penalties and noted Thompson faced life on Count 2, but did not explicitly state the maximum life sentence during the plea colloquy.
- The PSR later indicated Count 2 carried a life maximum; Thompson did not object to the PSR, but later challenged Rule 11 errors on appeal; the district court later sentenced Thompson to the statutory maximum on Count 1 and a life sentence on Count 2.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 11(b)(1)(H) error (failure to inform max penalty) was plain error. | Thompson argues the court failed to tell him the Count 2 life maximum. | State argues the error was plain but not prejudicial given the record. | Plain error established, but not prejudicial enough to undermine guilty plea. |
| Whether district court impermissibly participated in plea negotiations under Rule 11(c)(1). | Thompson contends the court’s remarks suggested a preferred plea outcome. | Defense contends the remarks were non-coercive and did not negotiate terms. | District court comments were isolated and did not amount to improper plea negotiations. |
| Whether the appeal waiver bars review given Rule 11 errors affecting voluntariness. | Waiver should be ineffective due to involuntary plea from Rule 11 errors. | Waiver valid to bar most challenges. | Waiver not automatically controlling; plain-error framework applied; voluntariness not shown. |
| Whether, viewed in context, the Rule 11 errors created a reasonable probability Thompson would have gone to trial absent the errors. | Record shows multiple attempts to go to trial and proximity of plea hearing. | Record shows Thompson knowingly waived trial and sought plea benefits. | Record does not show a reasonable probability he would not have pleaded guilty absent the errors. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Todd, 521 F.3d 891 (8th Cir. 2008) (Rule 11(b)(1)(H) plain error standard; impact on voluntariness not established by itself)
- United States v. Foy, 617 F.3d 1029 (8th Cir. 2010) (plain error review for Rule 11 violations)
- Davila v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2139 (S. Ct. 2013) (prejudice analysis under improper plea aid; timing of plea)
- United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886 (8th Cir. 2003) (waiver voluntariness review; knowing and voluntary)