United States v. Rene Rodriguez
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 16395
2d Cir.2013Background
- Rene Rodriguez pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute ≥500 g cocaine in the Northern District of New York and, because of a prior state felony under 21 U.S.C. § 851, faced a ten‑year statutory mandatory minimum (120 months).
- He signed a written plea agreement admitting guilt, acknowledging the 10‑year mandatory minimum and waiving appeal of any sentence of 120 months or less; he also signed a separate Exhibit A (cooperation-related) under which the Government might move for a downward departure.
- At the plea hearing the prosecutor recited the penalties (including the ten‑year minimum); the court asked follow‑up questions about the Guidelines and accepted the plea but did not explicitly have the judge personally recite the mandatory minimum or confirm the defendant’s understanding of that specific minimum.
- The PSR treated the mandatory minimum as applicable; at sentencing the Government requested the statutory minimum, defense counsel sought a below‑minimum sentence, and the court imposed 120 months. No contemporaneous objection to the plea colloquy was made.
- After sentencing Rodriguez complained about counsel’s representation and alleged counsel misadvised him about the prior conviction and the applicable sentence. Rodriguez raised (1) a Rule 11(b)(1)(I) claim and (2) ineffective assistance of counsel on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 11(b)(1)(I) was violated by the court’s not personally informing and determining defendant’s understanding of the mandatory minimum | Rodriguez: court erred by delegating recitation of penalties to prosecutor and failing to ensure he understood the 10‑year mandatory minimum | Government: defendant was informed (in plea agreement, by prosecutor, in PSR, at sentencing), and defendant failed to object below | Reviewed for plain error; defendant failed to show any error affected substantial rights or that he would have declined to plead—claim rejected |
| Whether any Rule 11 error requires automatic reversal | Rodriguez: seeks vacatur or remand | Government: any deviation is harmless or forfeited; plain‑error standard applies | Court applied plain‑error test and found no reasonable probability defendant would not have pleaded; no relief granted |
| Whether the court’s silence about Exhibit A/cooperation rendered plea involuntary | Rodriguez: lack of disclosure prevented accurate answer about promises | Government: plea agreement disclosed limits, and defendant understood waiver | Court noted better practice would be to ensure defendant understands cooperation-related promises but held record shows defendant knew the sentencing consequences; no relief granted |
| Whether ineffective assistance of counsel entitles defendant to relief on direct appeal | Rodriguez: counsel failed to explain mandatory minimum and misadvised him | Government: claim not properly resolved on direct appeal | Court declined to adjudicate ineffective‑assistance claim on direct appeal and remanded defendant to raise it collateral proceedings (§ 2255 or similar) where record and counsel can be developed |
Key Cases Cited
- Vonn v. United States, 535 U.S. 55 (governs standard of review for unpreserved Rule 11 errors)
- United States v. Vaval, 404 F.3d 144 (2d Cir.) (plain‑error framework in Rule 11 context)
- United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74 (explains reasonable‑probability requirement for Rule 11 plain‑error reversal)
- United States v. Alcantara, 396 F.3d 189 (2d Cir.) (procedures for handling cooperation issues and sealing/closure options)
- United States v. Oladimeji, 463 F.3d 152 (2d Cir.) (declining to resolve ineffective assistance on direct appeal when record is undeveloped)
- United States v. Burden, 600 F.3d 204 (2d Cir.) (treatment of ineffective‑assistance claims and collateral remedies)
- United States v. Livorsi, 180 F.3d 76 (2d Cir.) (strict adherence to Rule 11 and importance of ensuring plea is knowing and voluntary)
- United States v. Westcott, 159 F.3d 107 (2d Cir.) (no effect on plea where defendant failed to withdraw after learning correct penalty)
- United States v. Cusenza, 749 F.2d 473 (7th Cir.) (flexible approach to Rule 11 compliance where prosecutor’s statement may suffice)
- United States v. Liboro, 10 F.3d 861 (D.C. Cir.) (recognizing conflicting approaches when prosecutor describes charges)
- United States v. Jones, 143 F.3d 1417 (11th Cir.) (rejecting per se reversal when judge doesn’t personally state mandatory minimum)