US v. Smith: Smith bought 59 firearms over a 16-month period using two false addresses as his residence (one address didn’t actually exist) on the required ATF forms, leading to a 24-count indictment for lying to a federal firearms licensee. Smith agreed to plead guilty to one count the day prior to trial and, as part of the plea, agreed to waive his right to appeal his sentence.
After a Rule 11 colloquy that “fell short” in some aspects and at which Smith’s plea was accepted, he fired his attorney “for ineffective assistance” (counsel had been “recommended for disbarment” a week prior to the hearing – he had “since been disbarred and twice suspended”). Armed with a new, appointed, counsel, Smith moved to withdraw his plea. That request was denied and Smith was sentenced to 14 months in prison.
On appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the denial of Smith’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Noting the problems at the Rule 11 hearing – the district court did not discuss its ability to impose a non-Guideline sentence, did not address the appeal waiver, and, in fact, didn’t go over any of the plea agreement at all – the court observed that “it is not too much to ask that district courts conduct their plea colloquies with precision.” Nonetheless, the lack of “precision” in this case only resulted in an error that was harmless, as the record did not show that but for the errors Smith would have not pleaded guilty. This is partly because while, in his motion to withdraw, Smith challenged the effectiveness of counsel he did not challenge the adequacy of the Rule 11 colloquy itself.
No comments:
Post a Comment