United States v. Ryan Winner
670 F. App'x 337
5th Cir.2016Background
- Defendant Ryan Anthony Winner pleaded guilty to two counts of sexual exploitation of a minor (18 U.S.C. § 2251(a)) and was sentenced to two consecutive 30-year (360-month) terms of imprisonment with 15 years’ supervised release concurrent.
- At plea and in the PSR, Winner was informed of offense elements, Sentencing Guidelines role, supervised-release consequences, and the potential 60-year total imprisonment if sentences were consecutive.
- Winner did not object at the Rule 11 plea colloquy and did not move to withdraw his plea after receiving the PSR.
- On appeal Winner argued Rule 11 admonishments were deficient (nature of offense, statutory minimums/maximums, supervised-release nature, immigration consequences), the supervised-release special condition prohibiting contact with the victim was unconstitutionally vague, and that the oral sentence conflicted with the written judgment.
- The panel reviewed under the plain‑error standard because Winner forfeited contemporaneous objections.
- The court found the plea materials and PSR accurately informed Winner, any Rule 11 errors were harmless, and the only defect was a clerical error in the written judgment stating the sentences were concurrent rather than consecutive.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of Rule 11 plea colloquy re: nature of offense and statutory punishments | Winner: colloquy was deficient and misleading; plea not knowing/voluntary | Government: plea agreement, factual resume, and PSR provided required information; no showing of prejudice | Harmless error; plea knowing and voluntary; no substantial-rights effect |
| Adequacy of Rule 11 admonition re: supervised release and consequences | Winner: court failed to properly advise on supervised-release nature and consequences | Government: PSR and plea materials accurately described supervised release; Winner failed to show prejudice | Harmless; no effect on substantial rights |
| Immigration consequences advisement (despite U.S. citizenship) | Winner: plea admonishments about immigration consequences were erroneous and warrant relief | Government: no prejudice shown; Winner is a U.S. citizen and did not demonstrate he would have pleaded differently | No reversible plain error; claim fails |
| Special condition prohibiting contact with victim (vagueness/notice) | Winner: condition is unconstitutionally vague and fails to provide adequate notice | Government: condition applies to the minor victim identified; Winner did not show substantial-rights effect or request corrective exercise of discretion | Waived/inadequately briefed; court rejects invocation of discretion based on notice alone |
| Conflict between oral sentence and written judgment | Winner: written judgment conflicts with orally pronounced sentence | Government: written judgment and statement of reasons clarify court’s intent; any discrepancy is clerical | Limited remand to correct a clerical error (judgment incorrectly states sentences concurrent); otherwise affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Reyes, 300 F.3d 555 (5th Cir. 2002) (Rule 11 ensures plea is knowing and voluntary)
- United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55 (2002) (failure to object at plea limits review to plain error)
- Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (2009) (plain‑error standard requires showing of effect on substantial rights)
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (discretion to correct plain error only when it affects fairness, integrity, or public reputation of proceedings)
- United States v. Alvarado‑Casas, 715 F.3d 945 (5th Cir. 2013) (harmless‑error application to Rule 11 defects where plea materials supply required information)
- United States v. Cuevas‑Andrade, 232 F.3d 440 (5th Cir. 2000) (failure to personally advise defendant of charges/punishments can be harmless when plea agreement/fa ctual resume supply information)
- United States v. Molina, 469 F.3d 408 (5th Cir. 2006) (defendant must show he would not have pleaded guilty but for the error)
- United States v. Charles, 469 F.3d 402 (5th Cir. 2006) (issues inadequately briefed on appeal are deemed waived)
- United States v. Rivera, 784 F.3d 1012 (5th Cir. 2015) (notice‑only challenges do not automatically trigger corrective exercise of plain‑error discretion)
- United States v. Bigelow, 462 F.3d 378 (5th Cir. 2006) (written judgment that clarifies rather than contradicts oral sentence is permissible)