United States v. Johnson, 850 F.3d 515

Calvin Johnson was indicted on a drug‑trafficking count (21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846) and being a felon in possession of a firearm (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)); the government filed an § 851 information alleging two prior drug convictions, which—if applied—mandated a life sentence on the drug count.
Johnson pleaded guilty without a plea agreement at a videoconference allocution; the court asked the prosecutor to describe maximums/minimums and the prosecutor recited a technical, multi‑range explanation of guideline calculations before stating the statutory mandatory life term “trumps” the Guidelines.
The judge thereafter discussed the advisory Sentencing Guidelines and judicial discretion to sentence above, below, or outside the Guidelines, and then accepted Johnson’s guilty plea after asking whether he still wished to plead guilty.
Four months later Johnson sent a pro se letter asking to withdraw his plea and to replace counsel, asserting he had been misled and did not understand that plea meant an inevitable life sentence; the district court denied the motion without a hearing, relying on Johnson’s sworn statements at allocution.
At sentencing the judge expressed a desire to impose a lower sentence (≈180 months) but concluded he was bound by law and imposed life. Johnson appealed, arguing the plea was not voluntary/knowing/intelligent, the motion to withdraw should have been granted, and replacement counsel should have been allowed/hearing held.

Issue	Johnson's Argument	Government/District Court's Argument	Held
Validity of guilty plea (voluntary, knowing, intelligent)	Plea was involuntary and unintelligent because he did not understand plea meant mandatory life; allocution was confusing and counsel ineffective	Allocution fairly communicated sentence (prosecutor said the statutory minimum “trumps” Guidelines); Johnson’s sworn statements at allocution prove understanding	Plea was not knowing/voluntary/intelligent — vacated the plea and conviction
Adequacy of Rule 11 advisement (informing of mandatory minimum)	Court failed to ensure Johnson understood the inevitability of life sentence; discussion of Guidelines and discretion confused him	The prosecutor’s statements satisfied Rule 11; delegation to prosecutor permissible	Court erred by not clearly and unambiguously ensuring Johnson knew plea would result in life; Rule 11 violation requiring vacatur
Motion to withdraw plea / failure to hold hearing	Johnson asked to withdraw based on misunderstanding and ineffective assistance; sought new counsel	District court denied without hearing, citing sworn allocution and delay	Because plea acceptance was erroneous, court did not decide those claims; vacatur makes hearing on withdrawal unnecessary now
Reassignment on remand	Not argued by Johnson as central, but relevant to fairness	District judge had presided over plea and sentence	Case reassigned to preserve appearance of justice given prior acceptance of guilt by original judge

Bradshaw v. Stumpf, 545 U.S. 175 (plea validity requires voluntary, knowing, intelligent waiver)
Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742 (guilty plea must be made with sufficient awareness of consequences)
LaBonte, 520 U.S. 751 (§ 851 enhancement requires government notice prior to trial or plea)
Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (Sentencing Guidelines are advisory)
Maher, 108 F.3d 1513 (defendant must actually understand consequences)
Livorsi, 180 F.3d 76 (Second Circuit’s strict adherence to Rule 11)
Tien, 720 F.3d 464 (harmless‑error standard for Rule 11 violations)
Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (plea is more than admission; is a conviction)
McCarthy v. United States, 394 U.S. 459 (defendant must understand law in relation to facts)
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (district courts should correctly calculate applicable Guidelines range)
Rodriguez, 725 F.3d 271 (permissible delegation of penalty description to prosecutor in a different context)