United States v. Kenney
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 11957
| 1st Cir. | 2014Background
- Kenney pleaded guilty to drug distribution, robbery, and firearm charges and later sought to withdraw.
- ATF conducted a reverse-sting operation; informants staged a non-existent robbery of fake Brazilian stash-house.
- Kenney entered a March 2012 plea agreement but later wanted to plead guilty without the deal; the district court accepted the change-of-plea.
- At sentencing, Kenney argued that five kilograms of cocaine were added as a factor to trigger a ten-year mandatory minimum and claimed sentencing factor manipulation.
- Kenney challenges competency, Rule 11 plea atmosphere, ineffective assistance of counsel, and notice/accuracy concerns in sentencing; court affirms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Competency hearing sua sponte requirement | Kenney contends district court should have ordered a competency hearing | Government argues no such duty; no reasonable cause shown | No abuse of discretion; no plain error; no compelled competency hearing required |
| Rule 11 plea colloquy adequacy | Kenney asserts medications and renunciation issues render plea involuntary/unclear | Government argues inquiry was sufficient given responses | Not plain error; inquiry adequate under Morrisette and Savinon-Acosta |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel where to raise | Kenney claims counsel inadequately assisted, affecting plea and sentencing | Record insufficient to resolve on direct appeal; collateral review preferred | Remand denied; may raise under 2255; not resolved on direct appeal |
| Notice and sentencing factor manipulation | Kenney claims improper reliance on recordings not properly noticed; argues lack of notice | Government contends information available in PSR; predisposition supports decision | No error; predisposition evidence sufficient; no improper manipulation found |
Key Cases Cited
- Godinez v. Moran, 509 U.S. 389 (1993) (competency to plead and stand trial; cognitive understanding and assistant ability)
- Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375 (1966) (requirement to ensure capacity to understand proceedings)
- Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (1960) (fundamental to competency standard)
- United States v. Morrisette, 429 F.3d 318 (1st Cir. 2005) (medication inquiry at Rule 11 hearing not plainly inadequate)
- United States v. Savinon-Acosta, 232 F.3d 265 (1st Cir. 2000) (hearing adequacy; no settled rule requiring precise drug names in Rule 11 inquiry)
- United States v. Berzon, 941 F.2d 8 (1st Cir. 1991) (due process concerns with reliance on co-defendant trial testimony in PSR context)
- United States v. Rivera-RodrÃguez, 489 F.3d 48 (1st Cir. 2007) (notice requirements regarding information used at sentencing)