United States v. Joseph Symington
781 F.3d 1308
| 11th Cir. | 2015Background
- Symington pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm (18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g), 924(e)); a related drug count was dismissed. The written plea agreement stated he was not subject to the ACCA mandatory minimum and acknowledged a ten-year statutory maximum.
- The PSI concluded Symington qualified as an Armed Career Criminal under the ACCA based on three prior convictions (including a 2008 fleeing-and-eluding conviction initially thought to be a misdemeanor). That classification triggered a 15-year mandatory minimum and increased the guideline floor to 180 months.
- After the PSI, the parties jointly moved for a continuance based on a mutual mistake about whether the 2008 conviction was a felony; the motion was denied. Symington moved to withdraw his plea once the ACCA exposure became clear.
- The district court concluded the plea agreement could not bind it to ignore the ACCA, denied Symington’s motion to withdraw the plea, and sentenced him to 180 months to satisfy the ACCA mandatory minimum.
- On appeal the Eleventh Circuit held the district court was required to apply the ACCA (a mandatory statutory requirement) but vacated and remanded because the district court abused its discretion by denying Symington’s Rule 11-based motion to withdraw his plea without permitting withdrawal after the Rule 11 error was brought to the court’s attention.
Issues
| Issue | Symington's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether court could sentence beyond 10-year plea agreement cap | Plea agreement barred ACCA enhancement; court bound to 10-year cap | ACCA mandatory; court cannot enforce an agreement that produces an illegal sentence | Court: ACCA mandatory; district court properly applied ACCA despite plea language |
| 2. Whether district court abused discretion by denying motion to withdraw plea | Plea induced by mistake about ACCA exposure; should be allowed to withdraw | Initially did not oppose withdrawal; later argued plea stands | Court: Abuse of discretion; Symington should have been permitted to withdraw plea; conviction vacated and remanded |
| 3. Whether ACCA enhancement based on uncharged priors violated jury trial rights | Prior predicates not charged to jury; enhancement violates Sixth Amendment | Enhancement based on prior convictions is permissible without jury | Court: Did not reach this issue (vacated on Rule 11 grounds) |
| 4. Whether 2008 fleeing-and-eluding conviction is a violent felony under ACCA | Argues conviction is not a violent felony under ACCA | Argues conviction qualifies as a violent felony and supports ACCA | Court: Did not reach this issue (vacated on Rule 11 grounds) |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Moyer, 282 F.3d 1311 (10th Cir. 2002) (district court erred by enforcing plea agreement promise not to apply ACCA; ACCA application not waivable)
- United States v. Davis, 689 F.3d 349 (4th Cir. 2012) (district court cannot impose sentence that contravenes mandatory statutory minimum; plea promises cannot bind court to an unlawful sentence)
- United States v. Gandy, 710 F.3d 1234 (11th Cir. 2013) (Rule 11 error regarding ACCA exposure is plain error unless defendant was permitted to withdraw plea)
- United States v. Brame, 997 F.2d 1426 (11th Cir. 1993) (ACCA increases maximum and imposes mandatory minimum for defendants with three violent-felony priors)
- United States v. Brehm, 442 F.3d 1291 (11th Cir. 2006) (abuse-of-discretion standard for denial of motion to withdraw guilty plea)
- United States v. Hernandez-Fraire, 208 F.3d 945 (11th Cir. 2000) (Rule 11 requires court to ensure plea is knowing and voluntary)
- United States v. Siegel, 102 F.3d 477 (11th Cir. 1996) (failure to address Rule 11 core concerns affecting substantial rights requires automatic reversal)