United States v. Jim
786 F.3d 802
| 10th Cir. | 2015Background
- Defendant Derrick Jim was charged with aggravated sexual abuse (vaginal and anal) occurring in Navajo Nation; he initially pled guilty under a plea agreement but later withdrew the plea and was tried and convicted by a jury.
- The plea agreement included an express waiver of Rule 410 protections, stating admissions in the plea and at the plea hearing were admissible against Jim in any later proceeding.
- After pleading guilty, Jim sought new counsel and, through new counsel, successfully moved pre-sentencing to withdraw his plea (the district court granted leave to withdraw). The court warned Jim that his Rule 410 waiver might allow the Government to use his prior admissions at trial.
- At trial the Government introduced evidence of Jim’s prior admissions from the plea agreement and plea colloquy; Jim objected and argued Rule 410 barred that use. The district court admitted the evidence, enforcing the waiver because Jim failed to show his plea (and thus the waiver) was unknowing or involuntary.
- Jim appealed the admission of his plea admissions and also challenged his concurrent 360-month sentences; the Government cross-appealed, arguing the district court misapplied U.S.S.G. § 2A3.1(b)(4)(B) regarding the serious-bodily-injury enhancement.
- The Tenth Circuit affirmed the convictions (holding the Rule 410 waiver enforceable) but remanded for resentencing because the district court erred in refusing, as a matter of law, to consider injuries resulting directly from the sexual abuse when assessing the § 2A3.1(b)(4)(B) enhancement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Jim) | Defendant's Argument (United States) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Enforceability of Rule 410 waiver in plea agreement | Waiver unenforceable because entire plea was not knowing/voluntary — Jim supposedly believed he would still have a trial after pleading guilty | Waiver valid and enforceable; Jim signed explicit waiver and never proved plea was unknowingly or involuntarily entered | Waiver enforceable; district court did not err admitting plea admissions because Jim failed to show plea was unknowing or involuntary |
| Standard for challenging a Rule 410 waiver | Mezzanatto’s “some affirmative indication” creates a lighter burden for defendant to avoid waiver | Mezzanatto does not create a new, lower standard; ordinary showing that plea was unknowing/involuntary applies | Rejected special standard; defendant must prove plea was not knowing/voluntary under ordinary standards |
| Sufficiency of plea colloquy and agreement to show knowledge of waiver | Magistrate failed to explicitly inform Jim he was waiving trial rights at colloquy, and Jim earlier asserted confusion — so plea involuntary | Written plea agreement, signed and acknowledged in open court, and defendant’s background show understanding; no sworn evidence to support claimed confusion | Plea was knowing and voluntary based on written agreement, colloquy, and circumstances; waiver stands |
| Application of U.S.S.G. § 2A3.1(b)(4)(B) serious-bodily-injury enhancement | (District court previously) Injuries directly resulting from sexual abuse cannot be considered for the enhancement (to avoid double-counting) | Sentencing court may consider injuries resulting from the sexual abuse when assessing whether injuries meet the "serious bodily injury" definition | Tenth Circuit: district court erred in excluding injuries resulting directly from the sexual abuse; remand for resentencing to determine applicability/impact of two-level enhancement |
Key Cases Cited
- Mezzanatto v. United States, 513 U.S. 196 (1995) (Rule 410 waivers permissible; absent some indication of coercion, waivers valid)
- United States v. Mitchell, 633 F.3d 997 (10th Cir. 2011) (analyzed enforceability of Rule 410 waiver and applied ordinary inquiry into plea voluntariness)
- United States v. Rollings, 751 F.3d 1183 (10th Cir. 2014) (discussed standards for plea-voluntariness challenges and related waivers)
- United States v. Tanner, 721 F.3d 1231 (10th Cir. 2013) (written plea agreement and colloquy can demonstrate plea was knowing and voluntary)
- United States v. Long Turkey, 342 F.3d 856 (8th Cir. 2003) (sentencing court may consider injuries resulting from an episode of criminal sexual abuse when applying a serious-bodily-injury enhancement)