United States v. Rollings
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 9313
| 10th Cir. | 2014Background
- Rollings pleaded guilty to knowingly possessing stolen goods (Count 3 of the Third Superseding Indictment) and executed a plea agreement that included an appellate-waiver and admissions of the elements of the offense.
- The plea agreement and plea petition recited the factual basis and stated Rollings would waive appeal and collateral attack of his plea, sentence, restitution, and any other aspect of conviction.
- At the Rule 11 colloquy Rollings confirmed he understood the charges, rights waived, and pleaded guilty; the district court accepted the plea as voluntary with a factual basis.
- Rollings later received an approximately $500,000 restitution order (joint and several) based largely on related conduct by a co-defendant; his direct loss from the trailer was about $45,000.
- Rollings sought to appeal, arguing his guilty plea (and therefore his appellate waiver) was not knowing and voluntary because the court did not advise it could order restitution and the colloquy did not properly establish the mens rea element (that he knew the goods were stolen).
- The government moved to enforce the appellate waiver under United States v. Hahn; the Tenth Circuit reviewed whether the entire plea (including plea and waiver) was entered knowingly and voluntarily and granted the motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellate waiver enforceable when plea may be involuntary | Rollings: waiver invalid because plea was not knowing/voluntary | Government: enforce waiver per Hahn by examining waiver and Rule 11 colloquy | Court: May review the entire plea agreement (plea + waiver); waiver enforceable because plea was knowing and voluntary |
| Failure to advise court could order restitution (Rule 11(b)(1)(K)) | Rollings: omission prejudiced him because restitution was large and unpredictable | Govt: waiver and plea documents informed him of restitution; omission harmless because he had other notice | Held: No plain-error; plea agreement and petition put Rollings on notice of restitution, so no substantial-rights prejudice |
| Adequacy of colloquy on mens rea (knowing possession of stolen goods) | Rollings: prosecutor did not sufficiently confirm he knew goods were stolen while possessing them | Govt: record (colloquy, indictment, plea docs) conveyed mens rea; Rollings admitted knowledge and possession | Held: No plain-error; admissions in colloquy and prior receipt of indictment/plea docs supplied adequate notice of elements |
| Standard of review for appeal-waiver validity | Rollings: court should assess voluntariness of whole plea | Govt: focus only on waiver and Rule 11 waiver advisements per Hahn | Held: Court interprets Hahn to permit holistic review of whole plea agreement when parties intended agreement to be integrated; voluntariness of plea controls enforceability of waiver |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Hahn, 359 F.3d 1315 (10th Cir. 2004) (framework for enforcing appellate waivers)
- United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886 (8th Cir. 2003) (plea-agreement terms, including waivers, must be knowingly and voluntarily entered)
- United States v. Pogue, 865 F.2d 226 (10th Cir. 1989) (failure to advise of restitution can prejudice plea)
- United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74 (2004) (plain-error test requires reasonable probability defendant would not have pleaded guilty but for Rule 11 error)
- United States v. Ferrel, 603 F.3d 758 (10th Cir. 2010) (defendant who received omitted Rule 11 information from other sources generally cannot show prejudice)
- United States v. Tanner, 721 F.3d 1231 (10th Cir. 2013) (consider totality of circumstances and synergistic effect of plea agreement and Rule 11 colloquy)
- United States v. Vidal, 561 F.3d 1113 (10th Cir. 2009) (reviewed voluntariness of plea despite appellate waiver)
- United States v. Koran, 453 F.2d 144 (10th Cir. 1972) (retaining possession after becoming aware goods were stolen supports conviction under § 659)
- Ruiz v. United States, 536 U.S. 622 (2002) (a waiver is knowing and intelligent if defendant understands the nature of the right and likely general consequences)
- United States v. Gigot, 147 F.3d 1193 (10th Cir. 1998) (plea invalid if defendant not properly informed about charged crimes and penalties)
- United States v. Weeks, 653 F.3d 1188 (10th Cir. 2011) (receipt of indictment gives rise to presumption defendant was informed of nature of charge)
- Henderson v. Morgan, 426 U.S. 637 (1976) (guilty plea invalid when defendant lacked notice of element and true nature of charge)