816 F.3d 1021
8th Cir.2016Background
- Jeremiah Wroblewski was serving supervised release after a 2005 firearms conviction and had previously had his supervised release revoked once.
- A probation officer filed a petition alleging a supervised-release violation and the district court issued a summons for Wroblewski to appear at an initial revocation hearing scheduled June 3, 2014.
- Wroblewski did not appear for the hearing; he was arrested two days later, and the district court revoked his supervised release and imposed a 14-month prison sentence.
- A one-count indictment charged Wroblewski under 18 U.S.C. § 3146(a)(1) for failing to appear after being released under Chapter 207 (the Bail Reform Act).
- Wroblewski pled guilty and was sentenced to 21 months’ imprisonment (to run consecutively to the 14-month revocation sentence) plus supervised release.
- On appeal, the Eighth Circuit concluded the district court plainly erred in accepting the guilty plea because the record lacked an adequate factual basis: Wroblewski had been served with a summons but had not appeared and therefore had not been “released under” Chapter 207, an essential element of § 3146(a)(1). The conviction and sentence were vacated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a person served with a summons but who has not appeared is “released under” Chapter 207 for purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 3146(a)(1) | Gov: Service of summons effectively places defendant in the Chapter 207 release framework so failure to appear violates § 3146(a)(1) | Wroblewski: He had not appeared before a judicial officer and thus was not released under Chapter 207; element of offense not met | Court: Mere service of a summons, without appearance and an actual release under Chapter 207, does not satisfy the statute; element not met |
| Whether the district court established an adequate factual basis for the guilty plea under Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(3) | Gov: Plea was supported by facts in record | Wroblewski: Record lacked facts showing he was released under Chapter 207; plea lacked factual basis | Court: District court plainly erred by accepting plea without adequate factual basis; error affected substantial rights and warranted vacatur |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Frook, 616 F.3d 773 (8th Cir. 2010) (Rule 11(b)(3) requires adequate factual basis for plea)
- United States v. Bodiford, 753 F.2d 380 (5th Cir. 1985) (defendant who had not appeared before judicial officer was not "released" under the Bail Reform Act)
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (plain-error standard and correction of forfeited errors that cause conviction of an actually innocent defendant)
- United States v. Williard, 726 F. Supp. 590 (E.D. Pa. 1989) (release to voluntarily report for service of sentence treated under Bail Reform Act in context of failure to appear)
- United States v. Garner, 478 F. Supp. 1 (W.D. Tenn. 1978) (defendant who appears pursuant to summons and is allowed to leave may be treated as released under Chapter 207)