551 F. App'x 193
5th Cir.2014Background
- Wallace pleaded guilty to count one of a five-count indictment; other counts were dismissed in exchange for plea.
- During the plea colloquy, the district court advised Wallace he faced a maximum ten-year sentence under 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2).
- The PSR showed Wallace had five prior violent felonies, making him subject to the ACCA with a fifteen-year minimum sentence.
- Wallace was sentenced to 160 months after the government moved for a downward departure based on substantial assistance.
- Wallace did not object to the plea colloquy or the PSR; he appealed, challenging Rule 11 compliance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the district court commit Rule 11 error by misinforming Wallace | Wallace | Wallace | Plain error established |
| Whether the error was plain and affected Wallace's substantial rights | Wallace | Government conceded error | Yes, error affected substantial rights |
| Whether the appropriate remedy is to vacate and remand for proper proceedings | Wallace | N/A | Remand and vacate required |
Key Cases Cited
- Carreon–Ibarra, 673 F.3d 358 (5th Cir. 2012) (Rule 11 error when misinforming defendant of proper minimum sentence)
- Rodriquez, 553 U.S. 377 (Supreme Court 2008) (ground for withdrawing plea when maximum was misstated)
- Puckett, 556 U.S. 129 (Supreme Court 2009) (plain-error review remedial discretion)
- Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (Supreme Court 1993) (four-prong test for plain error)
- Alvarado–Casas, 715 F.3d 945 (5th Cir. 2013) (third-prong plain-error test applied to guilty-plea case)
- Escalante–Reyes, 689 F.3d 415 (5th Cir. 2012) (sanctions for structural integrity of proceedings; fourth prong considerations)
- Young, 470 U.S. 1 (Supreme Court 1985) (discretion in applying plain-error review)
- Vonn, 535 U.S. 55 (Supreme Court 2002) (standard for plain-error review)