Found on Fed-Cure

UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT NEWS 2003-61

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
On June 14, 2004, the United States Supreme Court decided
the criminal case summarized below.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
In this issue:

(1) CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (Under Rule 11 Defendant Must Show a Reasonable
Probability That But for the Error He Would Not Have Entered Plea)


- - - - - - - - -
OPINION
- - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

United States v. Dominguez Benitez
Decided: 06/14/04
No. 03-167
Full Text: http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/03-167.html

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (Under Rule 11 Defendant Must Show a Reasonable
Probability That But for the Error He Would Not Have Entered Plea)

The United States Supreme Court held unanimously (opinion by Souter,
concurrence by Scalia) that to obtain relief for an unpreserved Federal
Rule of Criminal Procedure Rule 11 (Rule 11) failing, defendant must show
reasonable probability that he would have plead differently, but for the
Rule 11 failing.

Carlos Dominguez Benitez (Dominguez) attempted to sell over a kilogram of
methamphetamine to an informant of a local law enforcement agency.
Dominguez was indicted on two counts: conspiracy to possess
methamphetamine and possession of methamphetamine, both with intent to
distribute. The possible sentence for these indictments was from 10 years
to life, statutorily mandated. Dominguez spoke and read only Spanish, and
worked through interpreters to negotiate with the government for a plea
bargain, indicating to his counsel he did not want to go to trial. With a
guilty plea, the Government offered to dismiss the possession charge and
said Dominguez would be given a safety-valve reduction of two levels
(which would have lowered his minimum sentence), subject to his satisfying
five conditions. Although not mentioned verbally, the written plea
agreement read to Dominguez in Spanish indicated that he could not
withdraw his guilty plea if the United States District Court for the
Central District of California (District Court) did not accept the
Government's recommendations. After Dominguez changed his plea to guilty,
it was found that he had three prior convictions, which violated one of
the safety-valve's conditions. Therefore, the District Court followed
mandatory guidelines and sentenced Dominguez to 10 years in prison.
Dominguez appealed, based on the District Court's failure to warn him of
his inability to withdraw his plea should it not accept the Government's
recommendations required reversal, as required by Rule 11. The Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Court of Appeals) agreed and reversed,
applying the Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 52's plain-error standard.
The United States Supreme Court (Court) reversed, holding that the Court
of Appeals' test, requiring Dominguez to prove that the District Court's
"error was not minor or technical and that he did not understand the
rights at issue when he entered his guilty plea" was inadequate to resolve
the issue. Indicating that the proper test was to require the defendant
to show a reasonable probability that he would not have entered the plea,
but for the error of the District Court, the Court found that the omitted
warning would not have made a difference in Dominguez's plea, compounded
by the strength of the Government's case against Dominguez. [Summarized
by Kimberly Boswell.]