U.S. v. Morales-Sosa, MORALES-SOSA
| Decision Date | 30 September 1999 |
| Docket Number | MORALES-SOSA,No. 98-10502,98-10502 |
| Citation | 191 F.3d 586 |
| Parties | (5th Cir. 1999) UNITED STATES of AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Miguel Angel, also known as La Mueneca, Defendant-Appellant Summary Calendar |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas.
Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
Defendant-Appellant Miguel Morales-Sosa ("Sosa") pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute heroin. The district court sentenced Sosa to 135 months imprisonment. Sosa appeals on the grounds that the district court failed to formally accept Sosa's guilty plea and the plea agreement prior to sentencing as required by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(e)(3). We affirm the judgment of the district court.
Sosa was indicted and charged with committing various drug offenses. He subsequently pleaded guilty to one count of a superceding information charging him with conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. Under the term of the plea agreement, the government agreed to dismiss all charges contained in the original indictment, and Sosa agreed to cooperate with any government investigations. Sosa also waived his right to appeal his sentence, reserving the right to appeal on only limited grounds.
At Sosa's plea hearing, the district court expressly reserved acceptance of both the guilty plea and the plea agreement until sentencing. At Sosa's sentencing hearing, the district court did not explicitly accept either the guilty plea or the plea agreement. Sosa was sentenced to 135 months imprisonment. Immediately following sentencing, the original indictment was dismissed upon oral motion of the United States Attorney.
Sosa seeks reversal of the district court judgment, contending that the court failed to expressly accept the guilty plea or the plea agreement as required under Fed. R.Crim.P. 11(e)(3). He also argues that the court failed to keep a verbatim record of the proceedings as required by Rule 11(g).
We review a challenge under Rule 11 under harmless error standard. See United States v. Johnson, 1 F.3d 296 (5th Cir.1993) (en banc). Under a harmless error analysis, we must determine (1) whether the sentencing court in fact varied from the procedures required by Rule 11, and (2) if so, whether such variance affected the subtantial rights of the defendant. See id. at 298.
The district court did vary from the procedures required by Rule 11. Rule 11(e)(3) provides that "[i]f the court accepts the plea agreement, the court shall inform the defendant that it will embody in the judgment and sentence the disposition provided for in the plea agreement." Fed. R.Crim.P.(e)(3). While a district court is required to defer its decision about whether to accept the type of plea agreement at issue here until after it has reviewed the presentence report, see U.S.S.G. § 6B1.1(c) (Nov. 1998), Rule 11(e)(3) requires that, prior to sentencing, the court inform the defedant of its ultimate decision to accept the plea agreement. We must assess the effect of the district court's failure to follow this procedure under the second prong of the harmless error test.
To determine whether a Rule 11 error affected the substantial rights of a defendant, we ask "whether the defendant's knowledge and comprehension of the full and correct information would have been likely to affect his willingness to plead guilty." Johnson, 1 F.3d at 302. Sosa has never alleged that full compliance with Rule 11 would have affected his decision to plead guilty, nor does the record support such a seggestion. Sosa clearly knew the term of the bargained-for plea agreement. The district court had the prosecutor read virtually the entire...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Lameirao
...court relied for the propriety of accepting a plea implicitly. Although we disagree with the defendant's claim that United States v. Morales–Sosa, 191 F.3d 586 (5th Cir.1999),16 does not support Judge Thim's ruling, we need not rely on federal law to support our conclusion that an implicit ......
-
State v. Lameirao
...relied for the propriety of accepting a plea implicitly. Although we disagree with the defendant's claim that United States v. Morales-Sosa, 191 F.3d 586 (5th Cir. 1999),16 does not support Judge Thim's ruling, we need not rely on federal law to support our conclusion that an implicit findi......
-
U.S. v. Lujano-Perez, LUJANO-PERE
...even an allegation, that the omission affected his guilty plea, the Rule 11 complaint was meritless. See also United States v. Moralez-Sosa, 191 F.3d 586, 587-88 (5th Cir. 1999) ("Sosa has never alleged that full compliance with Rule 11 would have affected his decision to plead guilty, nor ......
-
United States v. Smith
...indicate an implicit acceptance of the agreement, something we have previously held to be sufficient. See, e.g., United States v. Morales-Sosa, 191 F.3d 586 (5th Cir. 1999) (holding that although the district court did not expressly accept the defendant's guilty plea, defendant's substantia......