US v. Gary:
Gary pleaded guilty to separate counts of being a felon in possession of a
firearm and ammunition. While his sentencing appeal was pending, the Supreme Court
decided Rehaif, in which it held that
the Government was required to prove that a defendant in such cases was aware
of the status that made him a prohibited person. At issue in Gary’s appeal,
then, was whether his guilty plea, entered prior to Rehaif and without knowledge of all the elements of the offenses to
which he pleaded guilty, was still valid.
The Fourth Circuit concluded it was not
and vacated Gary’s guilty plea. Proceeding under plain error review, the court
agreed with the parties that the first two Olano
prongs – that there was error that the error was plain – were satisfied. The dispute
came over whether Gary could show prejudice and, if he could, whether the court
should notice the error. As to prejudice, the court concluded that entering a
guilty plea without knowledge of all the elements of the offense was a
structural error that per se
prejudiced Gary. The court also held that it must notice the error, as the “integrity
of our judicial process” requires that a defendant “who chooses to plead guilty
enters a knowing and voluntary plea.”
Congrats to the Defender office in South Carolina on the win!
No comments:
Post a Comment