United States v. John Howe, II
706 F. App'x 446
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant John Cal Howe II falsely represented himself as a decorated military veteran to obtain VA healthcare and other benefits.
- Howe pled guilty to multiple federal counts: theft in connection with healthcare benefits, theft of government property, making fraudulent demands against the government, and making fraudulent representations about military decorations (18 U.S.C. §§ 641, 669, 704(b), 1003).
- At the plea hearing, the magistrate did not expressly advise Howe of the nature of the charges as required by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(b)(1)(G).
- Howe did not object to the plea colloquy below, so review is for plain error on appeal under Dominguez Benitez.
- The record shows Howe reviewed charging documents with counsel, affirmed understanding of the charges, agreed with the factual basis, and repeatedly admitted fabricating his military record to obtain benefits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the plea court’s failure to advise Howe of the nature of the charges violated Rule 11(b)(1)(G) and warrants relief | Government: Any Rule 11 omission was harmless; defendant knowingly and voluntarily pled guilty. | Howe: He was not advised of the nature of the charges and thus Rule 11 error entitles him to relief. | The court found no plain error. Even if there was a Rule 11 omission, Howe failed to show it affected substantial rights or his decision to plead guilty. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dominguez Benitez v. United States, 542 U.S. 74 (2004) (plain-error review and defendant must show reasonable probability that, but for Rule 11 error, he would not have pled guilty)
- Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (2009) (four-part plain-error framework requires showing error affected substantial rights and fairness of proceedings)
- United States v. Gonzalez-Aparicio, 663 F.3d 419 (9th Cir. 2011) (discussing plain-error and Rule 11 standards)
- United States v. Aguilar-Vera, 698 F.3d 1196 (9th Cir. 2012) (Rule 11 error did not affect substantial rights where defendant had opportunity to speak up and did not)
- Chizen v. Hunter, 809 F.2d 560 (9th Cir. 1986) (statements made contemporaneously with plea carry great weight)
- United States v. Covian-Sandoval, 462 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 2006) (defendant must understand law in relation to facts to show prejudice from Rule 11 error)
- United States v. Collins, 684 F.3d 873 (9th Cir. 2012) (no relief where record showed defendant intended to plead and would not have acted differently)