United States v. Timmreck, No. 78-744
Court | United States Supreme Court |
Writing for the Court | STEVENS |
Citation | 60 L.Ed.2d 634,99 S.Ct. 2085,441 U.S. 780 |
Parties | UNITED STATES, Petitioner, v. Charles TIMMRECK |
Docket Number | No. 78-744 |
Decision Date | 21 May 1979 |
v.
Charles TIMMRECK.
Respondent was convicted of a federal drug offense upon a guilty plea. Upon accepting the plea the trial judge explained to respondent that he could receive a 15-year prison sentence and a $25,000 fine, but failed to mention a mandatory special parole term of at least 3 years required by the applicable statute. Respondent was then sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment plus a 5-year special parole term, and fined $5,000. Subsequently, respondent moved in District Court to vacate the sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 on the ground that the trial judge had violated Fed.Rule Crim.Proc. 11 by accepting the guilty plea without informing respondent of the mandatory special parole term. The District Court, while recognizing that a violation of Rule 11 had occurred, held that it did not justify collateral relief under § 2255. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that a violation of Rule 11 will support a collateral attack on a conviction based on a guilty plea even when there is neither constitutional error nor any showing of special prejudice to the defendant.
Held: A conviction based on a guilty plea is not subject to collateral attack when all that can be shown is a formal violation of Rule 11. Such a violation is neither constitutional nor jurisdictional. Nor can any claim reasonably be made that the error here resulted in a "complete miscarriage of justice" or in a proceeding "inconsistent with the rudimentary demands of fair procedure." Hill v. United States, 368 U.S. 424, 428, 82 S.Ct. 468, 471, 7 L.Ed.2d 417. Respondent could have raised his claim on direct appeal but did not, and there is no basis here for allowing collateral attack to do service for an appeal. Pp. 783-785.
6 Cir., 577 F.2d 372, reversed.
Kenneth S. Geller, Washington, D. C., for petitioner.
Kenneth M. Mogill, Detroit, Mich., for respondent.
Page 781
Mr. Justice STEVENS delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question presented is whether a conviction based on a guilty plea is subject to collateral attack whenever it can be shown that Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure was violated when the plea was accepted.
In this case, acting on the advice of counsel, respondent pleaded guilty to a charge of conspiracy to distribute various controlled substances. As required by Rule 11,1 the District Judge formally addressed respondent and determined that
Page 782
there was a factual basis for the plea and that he was acting voluntarily. The judge explained that respondent could receive a sentence of 15 years' imprisonment and a $25,000 fine, but the judge failed to describe the mandatory special parole term of at least 3 years required by the applicable statute.2
The District Judge accepted the guilty plea and, at a later proceeding, sentenced respondent to 10 years' imprisonment plus a special parole term of 5 years, and a fine of $5,000. Pursuant to a plea bargain with the prosecutor, other charges against respondent were dismissed. No objection to the sentence was raised at the time, and defendant did not take an appeal from his conviction.
About two years later, respondent moved to vacate the sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 3 on the ground that the trial judge had violated Rule 11 by accepting his plea without informing him of the mandatory special parole term. The District Court held an evidentiary hearing, at which respondent's lawyer testified that it was his normal practice to inform his clients about the mandatory special parole term but that he could not recall whether or not he had given such advice to this defendant. Following this hearing, the District Court denied the motion. The court recognized that a violation of Rule 11 had occurred, but concluded that it did not justify collateral relief under § 2255 because re-
Page 783
spondent had not suffered any prejudice inasmuch as he had received a sentence within the maximum described to him at the time the guilty plea was accepted.
The Court of Appeals reversed. 577 F.2d 372. It held that a violation of Rule 11 will support a collateral attack on a conviction based on a guilty plea even when there is neither constitutional error nor any showing of special prejudice to the defendant. Because of the importance of that holding to the administration of justice, we granted certiorari, 439 U.S. 1065, 99 S.Ct. 830, 59 L.Ed.2d 30, and now reverse.
In Hill v. United States, 368 U.S. 424, 82...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Moore v. United States, CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-00047-KD-B
...has special force with respect to convictions based on guilty pleas.' " Bousley, 523 U.S. at 621 (quoting United States v. Timmreck, 441 U.S. 780, 784 (1979)). Accord United States v. Davis, Crim. No. 08-0052-CG, 2010 WL 5239243, at *4-5 (S.D. Ala. Nov. 22, 2010) (Nelson, M.J.), report and ......
-
White v. United States, Criminal 18-cr-101-CG-MU
...with respect to convictions based on guilty pleas.” Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614, 621 (1998) (quoting United States v. Timmreck, 441 U.S. 780, 784 (1979)). “A defendant who enters a plea of guilty waives all non-jurisdictional challenges to the constitutionality of the conviction,......
-
People v. McClellan, No. S028225
...with regard to this consequence. As is made clear by the United States Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Timmreck (1979) 441 U.S. 780, 784, 99 S.Ct. 2085, 2087, 60 L.Ed.2d 634 (discussed in our companion decision in Moser, supra, ante, p. 731 of 24 Cal.Rptr.2d, p. 731 of 862 P.2d......
-
Boles v. United States, CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:18-00073-WS-N
...respect to convictions based on guilty pleas.'" Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614, 621 (1998) (quoting United States v. Timmreck, 441 U.S. 780, 784 (1979)). "A defendant who enters a plea of guilty waives all nonjurisdictional challenges to the constitutionality of the conviction, and ......
-
U.S. v. Sura, No. 05-1478.
...the voluntariness of his plea agreement in an attempted direct appeal, not in a collateral proceeding. In United States v. Timmreck, 441 U.S. 780, 99 S.Ct. 2085, 60 L.Ed.2d 634 (1979), the Court held that a defendant is not entitled to collateral relief from a conviction merely because Rule......
-
Moore v. United States, CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-00047-KD-B
...has special force with respect to convictions based on guilty pleas.' " Bousley, 523 U.S. at 621 (quoting United States v. Timmreck, 441 U.S. 780, 784 (1979)). Accord United States v. Davis, Crim. No. 08-0052-CG, 2010 WL 5239243, at *4-5 (S.D. Ala. Nov. 22, 2010) (Nelson, M.J.), report and ......
-
Hardy v. United States, 11 Civ. 8382, 10 Cr. 1123 (JSR) (AJP)
...review of [petitioner's § 2255] motion is the 'cause and actual prejudice' standard . . . ." (citing cases)); United States v. Timmereck, 441 U.S. 780, 783-84, 99 S. Ct. 2085, 2087 (1979) (A Rule 11 "violation is neither constitutional norPage 11jurisdictional," and thus "there is no basis ......
-
Creech v. Arave, No. 86-3983
...of an innocent defendant is only rarely raised by a petition to set aside a guilty plea. Id. (quoting United States v. Timmreck, 441 U.S. 780, 784, 99 S.Ct. 2085, 2087, 60 L.Ed.2d 634 (1979)). Page 1486 First, with respect to Creech's claim that he did not understand the elements of the off......