United States v. Travis Hogg
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 15206
6th Cir.2013Background
- Travis Hogg was indicted on two counts: possession with intent to distribute ≥50 g crack and possession with intent to distribute cocaine; he pled guilty under a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement to a lesser-included offense of possession with intent to distribute ≥5 g crack and agreed to be sentenced to 188 months.
- The plea agreement and the district court informed Hogg that the statutory range for the 5+ g offense was 5–40 years, consistent with pre-Fair Sentencing Act (FSA) law as understood in the circuit at the plea hearing.
- The parties also agreed relevant-conduct facts admitting responsibility for 50–150 g of crack for guideline calculations, producing an advisory range of 188–235 months and a career-offender base level driving the 188-month agreed sentence.
- After the plea, the lead detective (Edwards) was charged and later convicted of federal crimes; Hogg moved to withdraw his plea arguing newly discovered evidence undermined the detective’s credibility (denied by the district court).
- Hogg filed a second motion to withdraw, arguing the court misadvised him of the statutory penalty range (Rule 11(b)(1)(H)-(I)) because, after Dorsey v. United States, the FSA’s reduced statutory ranges applied to defendants sentenced after August 3, 2010.
- The district court denied withdrawal; on appeal the Sixth Circuit held the district court erred under Rule 11 because Dorsey required advising Hogg that the 5+ g plea could carry a 0–20 year range (post-FSA), and that error was not harmless — Hogg must be permitted to withdraw his plea.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Hogg) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court violated Rule 11 by misstating statutory penalty range at plea (post-Dorsey) | The court misinformed him: post-FSA (per Dorsey) the 5+ g offense carried 0–20 years, but he was told 5–40 years | The plea and admissions (50–150 g relevant conduct) made him ineligible for the lower 0–20 range; 5–40 was correct | Court: Rule 11 violation — Dorsey controls for defendants sentenced after FSA effective date; Hogg should have been told 0–20 years for a 5–28 g offense |
| Whether the Rule 11 error was harmless | The misinformation affected his decision to plead — 188 months was near the post-FSA maximum and materially changed the plea calculus | No harm: Hogg admitted quantities that would sustain 5–40 years; he received exactly the agreed 188-month sentence | Court: Error not harmless — reasonable probability Hogg would have rejected the plea if advised correctly; reversal and remand to allow plea withdrawal |
| Whether newly discovered evidence re: detective’s misconduct warranted plea withdrawal (first motion) | Detective Edwards’ charges undermined key witness credibility and could alter trial outcome | Government relied on Hogg’s admissions and plea facts showing guilt beyond reasonable doubt | District court denied the motion; appellate court did not reach merits because it granted relief on Rule 11 ground |
| Whether the Government’s alleged off-the-record promise of leniency (omitted from plea) invalidates plea | Hogg contended the government promised not to prosecute post-arrest conduct; omission in written plea was material | Government denied any binding extra-plea promise; parties’ written plea controlled | Court did not grant relief on this claim; primary reversal rested on Rule 11/ Dorsey error |
Key Cases Cited
- Dorsey v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2321 (2012) (held FSA’s reduced sentencing provisions apply to defendants who committed offenses before but were sentenced after the FSA effective date)
- Carradine v. United States, 621 F.3d 575 (6th Cir. 2010) (pre-Dorsey Sixth Circuit precedent applying penalties in effect at time of offense)
- Vonn v. United States, 535 U.S. 55 (2002) (government bears burden to show Rule 11 error is harmless)
- Dominguez Benitez v. United States, 542 U.S. 74 (2004) (for plain-error review defendant must show reasonable probability that, but for the error, he would not have pleaded guilty)
- Pitts v. United States, 763 F.2d 197 (6th Cir. 1985) (misstatements of maximum sentence can invalidate a guilty plea; remand for hearing whether plea induced by misinformation)
- Stubbs v. United States, 279 F.3d 402 (6th Cir. 2002) (misapplication of statutory mandatory sentencing can invalidate plea where defendant unaware of true consequences)
- Martin v. United States, 668 F.3d 787 (6th Cir. 2012) (Rule 11 errors reviewed for harmlessness if preserved; accurate plea-agreement language can sometimes cure minor court misstatements)