United States v. Rhonda Peggy Gittens
701 F. App'x 786
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Rhonda Gittens pleaded guilty to conspiracy (18 U.S.C. § 371), aggravated identity theft (18 U.S.C. § 1028A), and possession of device-making equipment (18 U.S.C. § 1029), and was sentenced to 75 months.
- After pleading guilty, Gittens moved to withdraw her plea before sentencing; the district court denied the motion.
- Gittens also sought an acceptance-of-responsibility reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1; the district court denied the reduction at sentencing.
- On appeal she argued (1) the district court misapplied the standard for withdrawing a plea and (2) the court plainly erred by denying the § 3E1.1 reduction (and separately argued § 3E1.1 is unconstitutional).
- The Eleventh Circuit reviewed the plea-withdrawal denial for abuse of discretion and the unpreserved sentencing issue for plain error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court misapplied the standard for withdrawing a guilty plea under Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(d)(2)(B) | The court used an incorrect standard and should have allowed withdrawal | The court properly applied the Buckles totality-of-circumstances test and required Gittens to show a "fair and just reason" | Affirmed: district court applied proper Buckles/Rule 11 standard and did not abuse discretion |
| Whether the court plainly erred by denying acceptance-of-responsibility reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(a)/(b) | Gittens argued she merited the reduction despite moving to withdraw her plea | Government argued withdrawal motion is inconsistent with acceptance of responsibility; Gittens preserved no objection | Affirmed: plain-error standard fails because withdrawal attempt contradicts clear acceptance of responsibility |
| Whether U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 is unconstitutional as pressuring guilty pleas | Gittens contended the Guideline impermissibly pressures defendants to plead guilty | Government relied on Eleventh Circuit precedent holding § 3E1.1 is constitutional | Rejected: precedent controls; § 3E1.1 is not unconstitutional |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. McCarty, 99 F.3d 383 (11th Cir. 1996) (abuse-of-discretion review for plea-withdrawal denial)
- United States v. Calhoon, 97 F.3d 518 (11th Cir. 1996) (standard for review of acceptance-of-responsibility findings)
- United States v. Siegelman, 786 F.3d 1322 (11th Cir. 2015) (plain-error review when issue not preserved)
- United States v. Felts, 579 F.3d 1341 (11th Cir. 2009) (elements of plain-error review)
- United States v. Gonzalez, 834 F.3d 1206 (11th Cir. 2016) (discretion in correcting plain error)
- United States v. Buckles, 843 F.2d 469 (11th Cir. 1988) (totality-of-circumstances test for plea-withdrawal)
- United States v. Medlock, 12 F.3d 185 (11th Cir. 1994) (presumption that plea colloquy statements are true)
- United States v. Sawyer, 180 F.3d 1319 (11th Cir. 1999) (record must clearly establish acceptance of responsibility)
- United States v. Lewis, 115 F.3d 1531 (11th Cir. 1997) (guilty plea evidence of acceptance may be outweighed by inconsistent conduct)
- United States v. Henry, 883 F.2d 1010 (11th Cir. 1989) (§ 3E1.1 denial is not unconstitutional punishment)
- United States v. Jones, 934 F.2d 1199 (11th Cir. 1991) (consideration of denial of culpability at sentencing does not impermissibly punish exercise of trial rights)