Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
2d 1007
Keith C. Monroe, Santa Ana, Cal. (Monroe & Riddet, Santa Ana, Cal., on
brief), for appellant.
Thomas E. Lydon, Jr., U. S. Atty., Columbia, S. C. (Mary Ellen Goman
Slocum, Asst. U. S. Atty., on brief), for appellee.
Before WINTER, Circuit Judge, FIELD, Senior Circuit Judge, and HALL,
Circuit Judge.
PER CURIAM:
On petition for rehearing and after considering the government's petition and
brief in support thereof and the prisoner's response and brief, we conclude to
grant rehearing, withdraw our prior opinion and affirm the district court's denial
White sought relief under 28 U.S.C. 2255. Unlike the facts in Boone, she did
not appeal from the sentence imposed upon her conviction. Before her guilty
plea was accepted, she was not given the specific admonition required by Rule
11(c)(5).2 Although White was interrogated by the district court as part of an
extended colloquy to establish the voluntariness of her plea, she was not sworn
and interrogated under oath.
While our original opinion proceeded on the assumption that a district court's
failure to comply with Rule 11 would give rise to the same relief on collateral
attack as on direct appeal, we are now persuaded to the contrary. Along with
the Second, Fifth, Eighth and Tenth Circuits,3 we agree that Davis v. United
States, 417 U.S. 333, 346, 94 S.Ct. 2298, 2305, 41 L.Ed.2d 109 (1974) (quoting
from Hill v. United States, 368 U.S. 424, 429, 82 S.Ct. 468, 7 L.Ed.2d 417
(1962)), establishes that " 'collateral relief is not available when all that is
shown is a failure to comply with the formal requirements' of a rule of criminal
procedure in the absence of any indication that the defendant was prejudiced by
the asserted technical error." Absent a mistake of constitutional or jurisdictional
dimensions, "the appropriate inquiry (under 28 U.S.C. 2255) was whether the
claimed error of law was 'a fundamental defect which inherently results in a
complete miscarriage of justice' . . . " 417 U.S. at 346, 94 S.Ct. at 2305
(quoting from 368 U.S. at 428, 82 S.Ct. 468). Accordingly, our inquiry here is
not simply whether Rule 11(c)(5) was observed; the record establishes that it
was not. Rather, our inquiry is whether White suffered prejudice of
constitutional magnitude as a result of non-observance of the rule.
We hold that she did not. It would be difficult enough to posit a case in which a
defendant who otherwise concluded to plead guilty would be encouraged or
discouraged to tender his plea by lack of knowledge that he may be interrogated
under oath under penalty of perjury by the district court. Such knowledge, or
the lack thereof, simply does not go to the voluntariness of the plea.4 But
White's case is even stronger because she was not interrogated under oath by
the district court. Even less could the voluntariness of her plea be adversely
affected by knowledge of what might, but did not, happen. We therefore
conclude that White is not entitled to relief under 2255 as a result of the
district court's failure to comply with Rule 11(c)(5).
II.
Our reading of the record persuades us that White was sufficiently advised of
her right to confront and cross-examine witnesses to comply with Rule 11(c)
(3). See United States v. Ready, 460 F.2d 1238 (4 Cir. 1972). We think also
that the record reflects both the factual basis for the plea and that White
understood the nature of the charge. Cf. Henderson v. Morgan, 426 U.S. 637,
96 S.Ct. 2253, 49 L.Ed.2d 108 (1976). Finally, the mere fact that the sentence
imposed upon White four years with parole eligibility after fifteen months
exceeded that estimated by her attorney does not render her plea involuntary.
There is no claim that there was an undisclosed and unfulfilled plea bargain for
a lesser sentence, Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 97 S.Ct. 1621, 52
L.Ed.2d 136 (1977); or that her attorney gave her any assurances of a lesser
sentence, Wellnitz v. Page, 420 F.2d 935 (10 Cir. 1970).
AFFIRMED.
The government calls to our attention the unpublished opinion of another panel
of this court in United States v. DeRose, 559 F.2d 1213 (4 Cir. 1977), holding,
inter alia, that, in a direct appeal, the district court's failure to comply with Rule
11(c)(5) was harmless error "because the defendant had made a plea bargain
and had the assistance of retained counsel." It is beyond the scope of this appeal
to determine if Boone and DeRose are in conflict and, if so, how the conflict
should be resolved. For the district courts within the circuit and the practicing
bar, however, we call attention to our Local Rule 18 relating to publication of
opinions. It suggests that Boone, as a published opinion, is entitled to greater
precedential value than DeRose which was unpublished, should any question
arise as to which controls
DelVecchio v. United States, 556 F.2d 106 (2 Cir. 1977); United States v.
Hamilton, 553 F.2d 63 (10 Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 834, 98 S.Ct. 122, 54
L.Ed.2d 96 (October 3, 1977); Johnson v. United States, 542 F.2d 941 (5 Cir.
1976), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 934, 97 S.Ct. 1559, 51 L.Ed.2d 779 (1977);
McRae v. United States, 540 F.2d 943 (8 Cir. 1976)