United States v. Young Ko
485 F. App'x 102
6th Cir.2012Background
- Ko pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute over 1,000 kilograms of marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846.
- Ko was sentenced to 36 months’ imprisonment followed by three years of supervised release.
- Counsel filed an Anders brief and Ko did not respond; the issue-focused briefing addressed the validity of the plea, sentence reasonableness, potential ineffective assistance, and a clerical error in the judgment.
- The district court conducted a Rule 11 colloquy confirming Ko’s understanding and voluntary entry of the plea; the plea was found valid under Brady and Boykin.
- The district court reduced Ko’s offense level (minor role objected to by Ko) and granted a downward departure for cooperation, yielding a 30–37 month guideline range.
- The court concluded Ko’s sentence was reasonable and within the Guidelines, and noted a clerical error in the written judgment regarding dismissal of counts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of the guilty plea | Ko argues plea may not be valid. | Ko asserts potential defects in the plea process. | Plea deemed valid by totality of circumstances. |
| Sentence reasonableness | Ko challenges sentence length. | Ko contends procedure or calculation errors affected reasonableness. | Sentence within properly calculated guidelines; presumption of reasonableness applies. |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | Ko claims ineffective assistance. | Counsel argues issues are meritless on direct appeal. | Ineffective assistance claim premature on direct appeal. |
| Clerical error in judgment | Judgment failed to reflect oral ruling on count dismissals. | Clerical error correction allowed under Rule 36. | Remand for correction of judgment to conform with oral ruling. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742 (U.S. 1970) (guilty plea validity hinges on knowing, voluntary, intelligent waiver)
- Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (U.S. 1969) (plea must be voluntary and intelligent)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (U.S. 2007) (reasonableness review of sentence; procedural and substantive components)
- Lanning v. United States, 633 F.3d 469 (6th Cir. 2011) (procedural error review for sentencing; plain error concerns)
- Lapsins v. United States, 570 F.3d 758 (6th Cir. 2009) (presumption of reasonableness for within-Guidelines sentences)
- Massaro v. United States, 538 U.S. 500 (U.S. 2003) (ineffective assistance claims generally raised in §2255 motions)
- Penson v. United States, 526 F.3d 331 (6th Cir. 2008) (Rule 36 clerical errors; unexpressed sentencing intentions not corrected here)
- Carr v. United States, 421 F.3d 425 (6th Cir. 2005) (Rule 36 clerical corrections; transcriptional errors)
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (expedited appellate review procedure when counsel finds no meritorious issues)