District Court Must Advise Defendant of “Effect of Supervised Release” During Rule 11 Colloquy

US v. King: King pleaded guilty to having possessed a firearm as a felon. At the plea colloquy, “the court did not advise King of the effect of supervised release or that a violation of the terms of supervised release could result in a total maximum term of imprisonment in excess of the statutory maximum for the offense.” King did not object or otherwise try to withdraw his plea. He was sentenced to 110 in prison, followed by a three-year term of supervised release.

On appeal, King’s counsel initially filed an Anders brief, but the Fourth Circuit ordered the parties to address the issue of the district court’s failure with regard to the effect of supervised release and whether that required vacating King’s guilty plea. The court held that the district court had erred, but that King suffered no prejudice and thus could not satisfy the needs of plain error review. Looking at the history of Rule 11, the court noted that prior Fourth Circuit precedent specifically required that defendants be notified of the impact of supervised release and revocations and that the require had, for a time, been within the rule itself. The specific reference in Rule 11 was removed in 2002, but the court concluded that since those amendments were not intended to be substantive that it did not change the requirements of prior precedent. King’s substantial rights had not been violated because he could not show that, had he been properly informed during the Rule 11 colloquy, that he would have decided not to plead guilty.