48 F.4th 1
1st Cir.2022Background
- State trooper stopped Williams after observing a gray Infiniti on I‑95; trooper recorded 79 MPH in a 70 MPH zone and followed the vehicle into a toll plaza in Wells, Maine.
- Trooper perceived Williams as nervous, learned Williams was on parole and subject to a Connecticut protective order, then arrested him for alleged violation of the order.
- While retrieving Williams’s phone, the trooper spotted a folded envelope containing suspected heroin; a drug dog alerted and a search uncovered ~400 heroin envelopes and 45 grams of cocaine base hidden in the vehicle.
- A grand jury indicted Williams for possession with intent to distribute fentanyl and cocaine base under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1).
- Williams pleaded guilty after a Rule 11 colloquy; he later moved to withdraw the plea (originally asserting ineffective assistance), the district court denied the motion, and Williams appealed asserting Rule 11 error and challenging the denial of plea withdrawal.
- The First Circuit reviewed the unpreserved Rule 11 and withdrawal assertions for plain error and affirmed the district court: the plea colloquy and factual basis were adequate and the denial of withdrawal was proper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (United States) | Defendant's Argument (Williams) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Rule 11 colloquy was deficient because the court did not inform Williams that pleading guilty waives the right to file pretrial motions (e.g., suppression) | Williams waived/acknowledged compliance below; Rule 11 does not require advising about pretrial motions; colloquy sufficiently explained constitutional rights and voluntariness | The court failed to advise that a guilty plea waives the right to move to suppress, so the plea was not knowing or voluntary | No plain error. Rule 11 does not require warning about pretrial motions; the colloquy adequately informed Williams and his plea was knowing and voluntary |
| Whether there was an insufficient factual basis because Williams denied he was speeding (the stated reason for the stop) | A court may rely on the prosecution’s proffer and defendant’s admissions; speeding is not an element of the drug charge | The court erred by finding a factual basis despite Williams’s express denial of speeding; court should have resolved the factual dispute before accepting plea | No plain error. Speeding is not an element of possession-with-intent; the factual basis for the drug charge was otherwise established by admissions and the prosecution’s proffer |
| Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying Williams’s pre-sentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea | Williams’s Rule 11/knowing-voluntary claims fail; he did not show a fair and just reason to withdraw; denial proper under the Gardner/Tilley factors | The alleged Rule 11 defects and lack of understanding about waiving suppression rights justify withdrawal of the plea | Affirmed. Under the Gardner factors the plea was knowing/voluntary and no fair-and-just reason to permit withdrawal; plain-error review fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Vonn v. United States, 535 U.S. 55 (plain-error review of Rule 11 objections)
- Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (plain-error test requirements)
- United States v. Cotal-Crespo, 47 F.3d 1 (1st Cir.) (Rule 11 core concerns: coercion, understanding, consequences)
- United States v. Jiminez, 498 F.3d 82 (1st Cir.) (factual-basis requirement applies to elements of the offense)
- United States v. Gandia-Maysonet, 227 F.3d 1 (1st Cir.) (court may rely on prosecution’s proffer for factual basis)
- United States v. Delgado-Hernández, 420 F.3d 16 (1st Cir.) (government proffers supported by credible evidence suffice)
- United States v. Acevedo-Sueros, 826 F.3d 21 (1st Cir.) (waiver vs. forfeiture principles)
- United States v. Gardner, 5 F.4th 110 (1st Cir.) (six-factor test for pre‑sentence withdrawal of guilty plea)