United States v. Jamaal Robertson
694 F. App'x 110
| 4th Cir. | 2017Background
- Jamaal Antonio Robertson pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2), and was sentenced to 59 months' imprisonment.
- Defense counsel filed an Anders brief asserting no meritorious appeal but raised three potential issues: (1) a defective indictment, (2) validity of the plea, and (3) reasonableness of the sentence.
- Robertson did not file a pro se supplemental brief; the Government declined to file a response.
- The district court conducted a Rule 11 plea colloquy; the court made several minor omissions but ensured an independent factual basis and that the plea was knowing and voluntary.
- The district court calculated the Guidelines range, heard arguments, and imposed a within-Guidelines sentence relying on public-protection and deterrence considerations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Indictment defective | Robertson argued the indictment contained non-jurisdictional defects | Government argued defects, if any, were waived by a valid guilty plea | Waived by plea; non-jurisdictional defects do not survive a valid guilty plea |
| Plea knowing & voluntary | Robertson challenged the Rule 11 colloquy sufficiency | Government contended the court substantially complied with Rule 11 and plea was valid | No plain error; colloquy substantially complied and plea was knowing, voluntary, supported by factual basis |
| Sentence reasonable | Robertson argued sentence may be unreasonable | Government argued court properly calculated Guidelines, considered arguments, and gave individualized reasons | Procedurally and substantively reasonable; within-Guidelines sentence presumptively reasonable and presumption not rebutted |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (procedures for counsel who finds appeal frivolous)
- United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114 (4th Cir.) (Rule 11 plea-colloquy requirements)
- United States v. Massenburg, 564 F.3d 337 (4th Cir. 2009) (plain-error review of plea colloquy)
- Henderson v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 1121 (2013) (plain-error framework for plea colloquy errors)
- United States v. Aplicano–Oyuela, 792 F.3d 416 (4th Cir.) (showing reasonable probability to vacate plea under plain-error)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (abuse-of-discretion standard for sentence reasonableness)
- United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572 (4th Cir.) (procedural reasonableness and § 3553(a) explanation requirements)
- Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007) (presumption of reasonableness for within-Guidelines sentences)
- United States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625 (2002) (indictment defects are not jurisdictional)
- Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258 (1973) (guilty plea waives non-jurisdictional claims)