U.S. v. Weeks
Decision Date | 09 August 2011 |
Docket Number | Nos. 09–4171,09–4183.,s. 09–4171 |
Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff–Appellee,v.Robert G. WEEKS, Defendant–Appellant. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Kent R. Hart, Assistant Federal Defender (Scott Keith Wilson, Assistant Federal Defender and Steven B. Killpack, Federal Defender, with him on the briefs), Salt Lake City, UT, for Defendant–Appellant.Diana Hagen, Assistant United States Attorney (Stewart C. Walz, Assistant United States Attorney and Carlie Christensen, Acting United States Attorney, with her on the brief), Salt Lake City, UT, for Plaintiff–Appellee.Before TYMKOVICH, SEYMOUR, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.SEYMOUR, Circuit Judge.
Robert G. Weeks pled guilty to conspiracy to commit securities fraud. He now argues his guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary and was the result of ineffective assistance of counsel. We consolidated his direct appeal with the appeal from the district court's denial of his § 2255 petition. We affirm Mr. Weeks' conviction on his direct appeal, but we reverse the dismissal of his § 2255 petition.
This appeal reaches us in an unusual posture. In 2002, Mr. Weeks pled guilty to conspiracy to commit securities fraud. He agreed to cooperate with the government and to testify against his co-defendants. Four years later, Mr. Weeks was sentenced to a year and a day in prison, and was ordered to pay a fine of $51,643.25.1 Mr. Weeks did not file a direct appeal.
A year after sentencing, Mr. Weeks filed a timely pro se motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate his conviction, raising a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel on six grounds. The district court denied relief on five of the grounds, but granted an evidentiary hearing on Mr. Weeks' claim that his counsel was ineffective for refusing his request to file a direct appeal from his conviction.
The district court appointed counsel for Mr. Weeks prior to the evidentiary hearing. Counsel filed a motion to expand the issues in Mr. Weeks' 2255 motion and/or to reconsider the court's denial of Mr. Weeks' ineffective assistance claim on the five other grounds. The district court denied the motion. After holding an evidentiary hearing on the one remaining claim, the court found Mr. Weeks' trial counsel ineffective for failing to file a direct appeal. The court entered an amended judgment of conviction to restore Mr. Weeks' right to appeal his conviction.
Mr. Weeks filed a direct appeal. He also appealed the district court's denial of the remainder of his § 2255 ineffective assistance claims without an evidentiary hearing, as well as the denial of his motion to amend the petition. We consolidated the appeals, and we granted a certificate of appealability to Mr. Weeks on the denial of his § 2255 petition. We now consider both of his appeals.
The criminal charges against Mr. Weeks and his co-defendants arose from the unregistered sale of stocks issued by Mr. Weeks' corporation, Pan World Minerals International, Inc., while he was president and CEO. Mr. Weeks pled guilty to violating 18 U.S.C. § 371, by participating in a conspiracy to commit securities fraud.
Because the plea colloquy plays a central role in Mr. Weeks' direct and collateral appeals, we provide relevant parts of the colloquy with minimal editing. The district court first confirmed that Mr. Weeks had read and understood the indictment:
Rec., vol. IV at 32–33 (emphasis added).
After Mr. Weeks waived his right to have the indictment read aloud, the district court asked the United States to recite the charges against him:
Id. at 33–34 (emphasis added). After Mr. Weeks spoke with his counsel, Mr. James Barber, Mr. Barber explained Mr. Weeks' concern:
MR. BARBER: His question is because of the naming of the statutes that were the object of the conspiracy, Mr. Weeks was concerned that the plea is for some of the substantive counts. That is not correct. It's simply a charge under Section 371, that you conspired to violate the other sections that Stewart just named on the record.... [T]he gist of the offense is that you conspired with other people, more than one, to commit violations of one or more of those various statutes, and that is the charge.
Id. 34–35 (emphasis added).
The court confirmed that Mr. Weeks understood the charge and proceeded. As the colloquy continued, Mr. Weeks affirmed that he had read and understood the plea agreement and had discussed it with Mr. Barber. Later, the court asked Mr. Weeks to explain what actions made him guilty of the conspiracy charge:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States v. Starks
...a potential constitutional error.’ " United States v. Dalton , 918 F.3d 1117, 1130 (10th Cir. 2019) (quoting United States v. Weeks , 653 F.3d 1188, 1198 (10th Cir. 2011) ). An error is "plain" if it is "so clear or obvious that it could not be subject to any reasonable dispute." United Sta......
-
United States v. Dominguez
...truth of his Rule 11 statements." Hedman v. United States, 527 F.2d 20, 22 (10th Cir. 1975) (per curiam); accord United States v. Weeks, 653 F.3d 1188, 1205 (10th Cir. 2011).2 Mr. Dominguez argues that his plea was not knowingly and intelligently made and is, therefore, invalid because "he ......
-
United States v. Dominguez
...truth of his Rule 11 statements." Hedman v. United States , 527 F.2d 20, 22 (10th Cir. 1975) (per curiam); accord United States v. Weeks , 653 F.3d 1188, 1205 (10th Cir. 2011). Mr. Dominguez argues that his plea was not knowingly and intelligently made and is, therefore, invalid because "he......
-
United States v. Perez-Perez, 19-2154
...applies plain-error review "less rigidly" when reviewing a potential constitutional error. Id. at 1130 (quoting United States v. Weeks, 653 F.3d 1188, 1198 (10th Cir. 2011) ).Here, the government concedes that Perez has satisfied the first two plain-error prongs by establishing that the dis......
-
Review Proceedings
...1012, 1014 (9th Cir. 1993) (appellate waiver did not “categorically” foreclose defendant’s right to bring § 2255 motion); U.S. v. Weeks, 653 F.3d 1188, 1201 (10th Cir. 2011) (appellate waiver in plea did not foreclose § 2255 petitions alleging ineffective assistance of counsel rendering ple......