United States v. Re
682 F. App'x 33
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant John Re pleaded guilty to wire fraud for a nine-year scheme selling over 74 paintings falsely represented as works by Pollock and de Kooning.
- Stipulated Guidelines range: 37–46 months; district court sentenced Re to 60 months.
- At the plea hearing the court questioned Re about psychiatric treatment and medications; defense counsel told the court they believed Re competent to plead.
- Re appealed, claiming (1) his plea was invalid because the court did not adequately ensure competency under Fed. R. Crim. P. 11, (2) ineffective assistance for counsel’s alleged failure to ensure competency, and (3) his sentence was procedurally and substantively unreasonable.
- The Second Circuit affirmed the conviction and sentence but remanded solely to permit the district court to amend the written Statement of Reasons to memorialize the court’s stated reasons for the above-Guidelines sentence as required by 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c)(2).
Issues
| Issue | Re's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Competency / Rule 11 adequacy | Court failed to ensure Re was competent to plead given psychiatric history, medications, and his answers at plea | Court properly questioned Re about meds and mental state; counsel vouched for competence; responses supported competency | No plain error; court satisfied Rule 11 through inquiry and counsel's representations |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | Counsel was deficient for not adequately determining competency before allowing plea | Even with further inquiry, no reasonable probability plea would not have been accepted; no prejudice shown | Claim fails under Strickland; no reasonable probability of different result |
| Procedural sentencing explanation | Sentence above Guidelines lacked specific reasons; court didn’t specify aspects not already covered by Guidelines | Court gave specific reasons (deception, duration, targeting vulnerable victims, threats) supporting above-Guidelines sentence | No procedural error as to oral explanation, but remand-only to correct blank Statement of Reasons form per §3553(c)(2) |
| Substantive reasonableness of sentence | 60-month term is excessive and outside permissible range | Sentence based on individualized §3553(a) findings (deception, planning, duration, criminal history) and is reasonable | Sentence not substantively unreasonable; within range of permissible decisions |
Key Cases Cited
- Domínguez Benítez v. United States, 542 U.S. 74 (Supreme Court) (standard for showing prejudice from Rule 11 error)
- Rossillo, 853 F.2d 1062 (2d Cir.) (court inquiry about medication and competence)
- Vamos, 797 F.2d 1146 (2d Cir.) (mental illness does not necessarily establish incompetence)
- Vaval, 404 F.3d 144 (2d Cir.) (plain-error standard for unpreserved Rule 11 claims)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (Supreme Court) (ineffective assistance standard)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (Supreme Court) (reasonableness review of sentencing)
- Verkhoglyad, 516 F.3d 122 (2d Cir.) (requirement to memorialize reasons for variance in Statement of Reasons)
- Robinson, 702 F.3d 22 (2d Cir.) (district court must explain above-Guidelines sentence)
- Cavera, 550 F.3d 180 (2d Cir.) (standard for setting aside substantive sentence)
- Koon v. United States, 518 U.S. 81 (Supreme Court) (deference to sentencing judge’s factual findings)