US v. Smith: After he and a codefendant robbed a gas station, Smith pleaded guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, to Hobbs Act robbery and brandishing a firearm in connection with that robbery. The plea agreement included a waiver of his right to appeal his sentence. The plea hearing was brief, with the district court asking if Smith understood that he was waiving various rights all at once (Smith said he did). As to the waiver, the district court noted that he “waive[d] your right to appeal” (among other things), concluding with “is that what you’ve agreed to?” (Smith said he did). The district court imposed a total sentence of 144 months, stating that it had considered the Guideline range as well as the statutory sentencing factors. It also told Smith he could appeal his conviction, but did not mention the waiver of his right to appeal his sentence.
On appeal, the Fourth Circuit vacated Smiths’ sentence and remanded for resentencing before a different district court judge. Smith did not argue that the deficiencies in his plea colloquy rendered his guilty plea invalid, but that they did render the appeal waiver invalid. The court agreed, concluding that an appeal waiver is severable from the rest of the plea agreement. In this case, the district court’s failure to adequately inquire into Smith’s understanding of the waiver, combined with his “history of severe mental illness and his minimal education” rendered the waiver unknowing and involuntary. The court also took the district court to task for repeatedly failing to comply with Rule 11 proceedings, usually in cases with appeal waivers that effectively insulated proceedings from review. The court vacated Smith’s sentence, as the Government conceded it was procedurally flawed, and remanded for sentencing before a different judge.
Congrats to the Defender office in Eastern North Carolina on the win!
No comments:
Post a Comment