United States v. William Crain
877 F.3d 637
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- William Bruce Crain pleaded guilty (2009) to possession of child pornography and using interstate facilities to transmit information about minors pursuant to a written plea agreement that included broad waivers of appeal and collateral attack.
- The plea agreement correctly stated the statutory maximum term of supervised release (life) but incorrectly listed a three-year minimum (the statutory minimum was five years); the plea colloquy misreported the maximum supervised-release term as three years.
- The PSR accurately stated a lifetime term of supervised release and recommended several special conditions (including a lifetime computer/Internet ban); Crain reviewed the PSR but did not object at allocution to supervised-release length or special conditions.
- Crain later filed a § 2255 motion alleging Rule 11 errors (misstatements at plea colloquy), ineffective assistance of counsel (failure to advise about supervised-release conditions and to object to the court’s misstatement), and a jurisdictional challenge; the district court upheld the collateral-attack waiver as valid but allowed ineffective-assistance claims that could invalidate the plea to proceed to evidentiary hearing.
- After an evidentiary hearing, the district court denied relief; the Fifth Circuit (panel) dismissed or affirmed in part: it held the collateral-attack waiver valid as to Rule 11 and jurisdictional claims, and affirmed denial of the remaining ineffective-assistance claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Crain) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 11 errors at plea colloquy invalidated plea and collateral-attack waiver | Court misstated supervised-release maximum and consequences of violation; waiver is therefore invalid | Waiver and plea agreement accurately disclosed life term and revocation consequences; Crain read and signed plea agreement; no prejudice | Waiver valid; Rule 11 misstatements did not show a reasonable probability Crain would have declined plea |
| Whether factual basis/jurisdictional element was inadequate (interstate commerce) | Government failed to prove interstate nexus for Count I | Government proffered emails/chats between Texas and Mississippi machines transmitting images over Internet | Factual basis sufficient; interstate-commerce element satisfied; waiver bars the claim |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to advise of special conditions (lifetime computer ban) | Counsel did not warn Crain of possible lifetime computer ban which would have deterred his plea | Counsel discussed risk of supervised-release restrictions and return to prison; lifetime ban not automatic; contemporaneous record inconsistent with prejudice | No prejudice shown; claim denied (court did not decide if Padilla extends to such collateral consequences) |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to object to court’s misstatement of supervised-release length at rearraignment | Counsel should have corrected the court’s misstatement to protect the plea | Plea agreement correctly stated life term; counsel’s failure to object caused no prejudice | No deficient prejudice — failure to object did not entitle relief |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. White, 307 F.3d 336 (5th Cir. 2002) (ineffective-assistance claims that affect plea validity survive collateral-attack waiver)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (performance-and-prejudice standard for ineffective assistance)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985) (prejudice standard for ineffective assistance in guilty-plea context)
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) (counsel must advise regarding deportation consequences; Court left open scope beyond deportation)
- Lee v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1958 (2017) (addresses prejudice inquiry where counsel misadvised about immigration consequences)
- United States v. Duke, 788 F.3d 392 (5th Cir. 2015) (lifetime computer bans on supervised release may be overly broad)
- United States v. Hildenbrand, 527 F.3d 466 (5th Cir. 2008) (insufficient factual basis can invalidate a plea despite waiver)
- United States v. Portillo, 18 F.3d 290 (5th Cir. 1994) (defendant held to plea agreement when Rule 11 record shows understanding)