United States v. Wilbert v. Ladue, Jr., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 14761

Defendant Wilbert Ladue Jr. pleaded guilty to two counts of aggravated sexual abuse of a child (18 U.S.C. §§ 2241(a)(1)) after negotiating down from § 2241(c) to avoid a 30-year mandatory minimum.
At the change-of-plea hearing Ladue admitted the offenses, affirmed he read and understood the plea agreement, and apologized to the victims; the court accepted the plea.
Six weeks later Ladue moved to withdraw his plea, claiming he did not understand it and had been steered by new counsel; he had previously given detailed admissions to Probation.
At the withdrawal hearing the district court relied on Ladue’s in-court plea colloquy and found his later assertions contradicted his prior statements; the motion was denied.
Ladue appealed, arguing the district court plainly erred by failing to advise him at the plea hearing that pleading to aggravated sexual abuse (a Class A felony) made him ineligible for probation under 18 U.S.C. § 3561(a)(1).
The Eighth Circuit affirmed, holding (1) probation ineligibility is not a “mandatory minimum penalty” under Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(1)(I), and (2) even if Rule 11 required advising on probation ineligibility, Ladue failed the Dominguez Benitez test for prejudice (no reasonable probability he would have refused the plea).

Issue	Ladue’s Argument	Government’s Argument	Held
Whether Rule 11(b)(1)(I) required advising that a guilty plea to a Class A felony precludes probation	Rule 11’s “mandatory minimum penalty” notice includes probation ineligibility under § 3561(a)(1) and thus the court erred by not advising	§ 3561(a)(1) does not impose a mandatory minimum; Rule 11 requires notice of statutory minimums the court must impose, not sentencing options the court cannot impose	Held: No Rule 11 violation — probation ineligibility is not a “mandatory minimum penalty.”
If failure to advise constituted Rule 11 error, whether the error was prejudicial under Dominguez Benitez	The omission was material; Ladue would not have pled guilty if he knew probation was unavailable	Ladue was told by counsel that probation was not a realistic option, admitted recalling that, pleaded despite life exposure, and sought withdrawal before learning probation ineligibility — no reasonable probability of different choice	Held: Even if error, harmless under Rule 11(h); Ladue did not show reasonable probability he would have declined to plead guilty.

United States v. Green, 521 F.3d 929 (8th Cir. 2008) (standard of review for plea-withdrawal and Rule 11 issues)
United States v. Morrison, 967 F.2d 264 (8th Cir. 1992) (knowing, voluntary plea makes withdrawal seldom appropriate)
United States v. Gray, 581 F.3d 749 (8th Cir. 2009) (discussing Rule 11 notice requirements where mandatory minimums apply)
United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74 (2004) (defendant must show reasonable probability the Rule 11 error affected decision to plead)
United States v. Lahey, 186 F.3d 272 (2d Cir. 1999) (probation ineligibility is not a mandatory minimum)
United States v. Elliott, 971 F.2d 620 (10th Cir. 1992) (same)
United States v. Granados, 168 F.3d 343 (8th Cir. 1999) (defendant need not be apprised of sentencing options outside statutory max/min)
United States v. Gomez, 326 F.3d 971 (8th Cir. 2003) (post-plea, contradictory assertions of innocence are unreliable)