United States v. Santiago
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 24426
1st Cir.2014Background
- On Sept. 20, 2010, Santiago and two coconspirators robbed a gas station manager returning to deposit receipts; the manager was shot and later died. Santiago drove the getaway car and later surrendered.
- A federal grand jury indicted Santiago on (1) conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery, (2) Hobbs Act robbery, and (3) use/possession/discharge of a firearm in relation to a crime of violence resulting in death (18 U.S.C. §§ 1951, 924(c)).
- Count Three carried a ten-year mandatory minimum and required consecutive service; the government declined to seek the death penalty.
- Santiago pleaded guilty at a Rule 11 change-of-plea hearing (no plea agreement) but the court and government failed to inform him on the record of Count Three’s mandatory minimum and its consecutive requirement.
- The district court later sentenced Santiago to 40 years (20 years concurrent on Counts 1–2 and 20 years consecutive on Count 3). Santiago appealed, arguing the Rule 11 omission required vacatur of his plea.
- The First Circuit accepted that a plain Rule 11 error occurred but held Santiago failed to show a reasonable probability he would not have pleaded guilty absent the omission; conviction and sentence were affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether omission at Rule 11 hearing of Count Three’s mandatory minimum and consecutive requirement invalidates plea | Santiago: Rule 11(b)(1)(I) error; he wasn’t informed, so plea must be vacated | Government: Concedes Rule 11 error but contends error did not affect Santiago’s substantial rights (plain error test fails) | Court: Error was plain but did not affect substantial rights; no reasonable probability he would have gone to trial; plea affirmed |
| Whether defendant reasonably lacked knowledge of mandatory minimum/consecutiveness given record | Santiago: Argues ambiguity in his pre-hearing filings implies he might have pleaded differently if informed | Government: Points to letter, PSR, counsel’s review and sentencing colloquy showing Santiago knew of the 10-year consecutive minimum | Court: Record (pre- and post-hearing filings, PSR, counsel statements, sentencing remarks) shows Santiago knew; no prejudice |
| Applicability of Dominguez-Benitez plain-error standard | Santiago: Error meets plain-error framework; contends prejudice prong satisfied | Government: Accepts plain and obvious error but denies prejudice under Dominguez-Benitez | Court: Applies Dominguez-Benitez; prejudice not shown because record undermines claim of surprise |
| Claim based on Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(i)(1)(A) (PSR reading/discussion) | Santiago (raised late): Court failed to confirm he read and discussed PSR, so sentencing confirmation insufficient | Government: Argument waived and record shows counsel reviewed PSR with defendant; no objection at sentencing | Court: Waived on appeal and, in any event, record confirms PSR review with counsel; adds nothing to Rule 11 claim |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Pleau, 680 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2012) (related en banc decision involving federal detainer issue with a coconspirator)
- United States v. Rivera-Maldonado, 560 F.3d 16 (1st Cir. 2009) (Rule 11 change-of-plea requirements and plain-error framework)
- United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55 (2002) (plain-error standard for Rule 11 violations)
- United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74 (2004) (defendant must show reasonable probability that, but for error, he would not have pleaded guilty)
- United States v. Ortiz-García, 665 F.3d 279 (1st Cir. 2011) (distinguishable Rule 11/PSR review facts where defendant reportedly learned of maximum only at sentencing)
- United States v. DeLeon, 704 F.3d 189 (1st Cir. 2013) (better practice for courts to address defendant about PSR; failure not per se reversible error)
- United States v. Martí-Lón, 524 F.3d 295 (1st Cir. 2008) (issues raised first in reply brief are waived)