United States v. Mason
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 1101
| 5th Cir. | 2012Background
- Mason convicted of wire fraud and sentenced to 30 months and restitution of $757,792.20.
- Guilty plea occurred after multiple plea discussions; Rule 11 adequacy at plea was disputed.
- District court did not orally advise Mason of the right to court-appointed counsel if indigent at the plea.
- Mason signed an Understanding of Constitutional Rights acknowledging right to court-appointed counsel if needed.
- Mason later sought appointed counsel for sentencing; district court denied the request.
- On appeal, conviction affirmed but sentence vacated and remanded for re-sentencing due to Sixth Amendment choice-of-counsel violation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 11 plain error occurred at the guilty plea | Mason argues the district court failed to advise about court-appointed counsel | Government argues written documents suffice and no Rule 11 deficiency | Yes, Rule 11 error occurred but no substantial-right impact; conviction affirmed |
| Whether Mason had Sixth Amendment right to substitute appointed counsel for sentencing | Mason effectively invoked right to appointed counsel | No per se right to substitute; good cause required for appointed counsel when already represented | Yes, right to choice of counsel violated; remand for re-sentencing required |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55 (2002) (plain-error review standard for unraised errors)
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (plain-error framework and prejudice analysis)
- Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (2009) (removal of error when applicable under plain error review)
- Dominguez Benitez v. United States, 542 U.S. 74 (2004) (prejudice standard for guilty-plea Rule 11 issues)
- Gonzalez-Rodriguez v. United States, 621 F.3d 354 (2010) (prejudice and substantial rights in Rule 11 context)
- Gonzalez-Lopez v. United States, 548 U.S. 140 (2006) (Sixth Amendment right to choice of counsel and when it applies)
- Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered v. United States, 491 U.S. 617 (1989) (right to counsel of choice distinguished from appointed counsel)
- Wheat v. United States, 486 U.S. 153 (1988) (counsel-appointment principles and right to representation)
- Dinitz v. United States, 538 F.2d 1214 (1976) (balancing right to counsel with judicial discretion)
- Gonzalez-Lopez (repeat), 548 U.S. 140 (2006) (relevancy to substitution of counsel when indigent)