US v. Perdue: In 2018, law enforcement began investigating Perdue and two others for drug trafficking activities. A search of the home out of which the drugs were being sold uncovered (among other things) three firearms. All three defendants were charged with multiple offenses, including aiding and abetting each other in possessing the firearms in connection with a drug trafficking crime. Perdue pleaded guilty to all counts. At the plea hearing, the district court, in describing what the Government would be required to prove at trial, failed to explain that the Government would have to prove that “the defendants had advance knowledge that a firearm would be possessed by a confederate in furtherance of the drug crimes.” Perdue admitted to owning and possessing a Ruger handgun as part of his plea. He was sentenced to a total term of 195 months in prison.
In 2020, Perdue filed a § 2255 motion that ultimately resulted in the district court entering an amended judgment to allow him to pursue a direct appeal. As part of those proceedings, however, Perdue’s trial counsel submitting an affidavit stating that the decision to plead to all counts without an indictment was Perdue’s alone and that he “made clear to me that he would not consider a plea agreement that required his cooperation against other co-defendants.”
On direct appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed Perdue’s convictions and sentence. Perdue argued that the district court’s failure to explain the advance knowledge element at the time of his guilty plea required vacation of his firearm offense. Applying plain error, the court disagreed. The district court erred and that error was plain, the court concluded, rejecting a Government argument that the plea should be read as being one of principal, rather than accomplice, liability. However, Perdue could not show prejudice because he could not show a reasonable probability that he would have not pleaded guilty had he been properly instructed.
No comments:
Post a Comment