Fourth Circuit: Magistrate's Failure to Warn of ACCA Enhancement Was Plain Error
Loaded on Feb. 18, 2020 by Douglas Ankney published in Criminal Legal News March, 2020, page 26
Location: United States of America.
On rehearing en banc, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit vacated the conviction of Jesmene Lockhart because the magistrate judge's failure to warn Lockhart that his guilty plea exposed him to sentencing enhancement under the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) ("ACCA"), was plain error under the facts and circumstances of this case.
In September 2014, officers from the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department in North Carolina arrested Lockhart while he was in possession of a handgun. He pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). During the Rule 11 plea colloquy, the Government stated that the maximum penalty faced by Lockhart was 120 months' imprisonment. Neither the court nor the Government clarified that Lockhart's criminal history qualified him for sentencing enhancement under the ACCA, exposing him to a possible life sentence with a 180-month mandatory-minimum term of imprisonment.
In the presentence report ("PSR"), the probation officer recommended that Lockhart be sentenced under the ACCA because he had committed three robberies in one week when he was 16 years old. The PSR highlighted the error in the plea colloquy, stating Lockhart "was informed his statutory penalties ... were not more than ten years['] imprisonment," but "based on [Lockhart's] three prior convictions for violent felonies, [his] statutory penalties ... are not less than fifteen years imprisonment."
At sentencing, defense counsel neither asserted Lockhart was previously unaware of his exposure to ACCA enhancement, nor did counsel seek to withdraw the guilty plea. The court imposed the 180-month mandatory term under the ACCA.
After the sentence was imposed, defense counsel informed the court that he had discussed the potential ACCA exposure with Lockhart. But the court did not confirm with Lockhart that he understood his potential sentence under the ACCA at the time he pleaded guilty.
Lockhart appealed, and a panel of the Fourth Circuit affirmed. Then upon Lockhart's request, the panel's opinion was vacated, and the Court ordered a rehearing en banc.
Lockhart argued that had he known he faced a 180-month mandatory minimum rather than a 120-month maximum penalty, he would not have pleaded guilty. Because of representations made by the court and the Government at the plea colloquy, Lockhart had every reason to believe he would be sentenced from zero to 120 months' imprisonment with an advisory Guidelines range of between 63 and 78 months that was reduced to between 46 and 57 months for his acceptance of responsibility based on his guilty plea.
Further, it was reasonable for Lockhart to believe he would receive a sentence on the lower end of the Guidelines because his prior record contained only those offenses he committed as a juvenile. Conversely, due to the ACCA qualification, Lockhart's minimum Guidelines-recommended sentence was 188 months, and his guilty plea resulted in a sentence that was only eight months lower. This was no incentive to plead guilty, give up his substantial rights, and relieve the Government of its burden to prove every element of the charged offense.
Because Lockhart did not move to withdraw his guilty plea, the Court reviewed for plain error, which required Lockhart to show: (1) an error (2) that was obvious occurred, (3) that affected his substantial rights, and (4) that seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceedings. United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993).
The Court observed that the first two factors were obviously satisfied. The Supreme Court has explained: "If the judge told the defendant that the maximum possible sentence was 10 years and then imposed a sentence of 15 years based on ACCA, the defendant would have been sorely misled and would have a ground for moving to withdraw the plea." United States v. Rodriguez, 553 U.S. 377 (2008). Such erroneous information given during a Rule 11 plea colloquy cannot be corrected by contrary information in a later-prepared PSR. United States v. Goins, 51 F.3d 400 (4th Cir. 1995).
As to the third factor, the Fourth Circuit was convinced that a review of the entire record of this case demonstrated that there was "a reasonable probability that, but for the error, [Lockhart] would not have entered the plea." United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74 (2004). The Court further opined that Lockhart's prejudice was magnified in light of Rehaif v. United States, 139 U.S. 2191 (2019), which was decided during the pendency of this appeal. Rehaif held that to obtain a conviction under § 922(g), the Government must prove both (1) the defendant knowingly possessed a firearm, and (2) the defendant knew he or she was a member of a class of persons prohibited from possessing a firearm. At the time Lockhart entered his plea, no one in the courtroom — including the judge, the prosecutor, Lockhart, or his counsel — knew the elements of § 922(g) offenses per Rehaif. And the requirement that a defendant understand the essential elements of the offense to which he pleads guilty is fundamental to due process. Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614 (1998).
Because Lockhart lacked information to engage "in the calculus necessary to enter a plea" the Court concluded the errors "seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings." The Court rejected the Government's reliance on defense counsel's post-sentencing statement that he had informed Lockhart of the consequences of a potential sentence under the ACCA prior to pleading.
Accordingly, the Court vacated Lockhart's plea and remanded to the district court for further proceedings. See: United States v. Lockhart, 947 F.3d 187 (4th Cir. 2020).
United States v. Lockhart
947 F.3d 187 (4th Cir. 2020)
Federal Rules Limit Searches of Private DNA Databases, by Jayson Hawkins
Unsurprisingly Lenient Sentence for Rapist Cop, by Anthony Accurso
Kim Kardashian Keeps Going, Helps Release D.C. Prisoner, by Dale Chappell
Court Rulings Condemning Cash Bail Systems Increasing, by Edward Lyon
More Crooked Cops in New York City Make the Naughty List, by Douglas Ankney
For the Mentally Ill, Calling 911 Could Prove Deadly, by Edward Lyon
Alabama Sheriff Denied Immunity for False Charges Against Whistleblower, by Anthony Accurso
Police Still Have Access to Records That Are Supposedly Sealed, Suit Alleges, by Bill Barton
DNA Contamination Threatened Conviction of Innocent Man, by Kevin Bliss
White Cop Gets 10 Years for Murder; Black Kid Gets 10 Days for Oversleeping, by Douglas Ankney
DA's Office Files Bar Complaint on Its Own Former Prosecutor, by Anthony Accurso
Tenth Annual NRC Report Magnifies Limits of Forensic Evidence, by Bill Barton
Critics Claim Thin Blue Line Protects Cops and Prosecutors in Orange County, California, by Bill Barton
Study Confirms Immigrants Sentenced More Harshly in Non-Immigrant Areas, by Dale Chappell
Prosecutors Transform Due Process into 'Dues Processed', by Douglas Ankney
New Tennessee Legislation Will Destroy Hundreds, Probably Thousands, of Families, by Sandy Rozek
Employers are Adjusting to Hiring Ex-Offenders, by Anthony Accurso
Federal Prosecutor's Office in Kansas Considers It Acceptable to Listen to Attorney-Client Conversations, by Kevin Bliss
Sixth Circuit Vacates Sentence Because District Court Relied on Uncharged Shooting Allegation for Upward Departure from Sentencing Guidelines Range, by Douglas Ankney
Washington Supreme Court Remands for Resentencing Where State Failed to Prove Criminal History, by Douglas Ankney
Washington Supreme Court Affirms Reversals of Murder Convictions, Overrules Townsend, by Douglas Ankney
Texas Court of Criminal Appeals Announces New Test in Comparing Out-of-State Priors for Sentence Enhancement for Repeat Sex Offenders, by Michael Berk
Vermont Supreme Court Rejects 'Blanket Rule' Requiring Fingerprinting in Misdemeanor Cases, by Dale Chappell
Mississippi Supreme Court Abolishes 'Pre-Arming' Jury Instruction, by Dale Chappell
Second Circuit Holds Appointment of Counsel for Direct Appeal Not Subject to Frivolousness Rule, by Dale Chappell
Lies by Former Houston Cop Facing Murder Charge Might Affect Over 14,000 Cases, by David M. Reutter
The 'First Step' Has Been Taken — What's Next?, by Dale Chappell
Ninth Circuit Affirms Habeas Relief Where Counsel Failed to Present Mitigating Evidence at Penalty Phase, by Douglas Ankney
Georgia Supreme Court Reverses Conviction for Failure to Give Accomplice-Corroboration Jury Instruction, by Douglas Ankney
California Court of Appeal Invalidates Title 15 § 3490(a)(5) of the California Code of Regulations, by Douglas Ankney
Nevada Supreme Court Announces Rule for When Hearing Required on Fair-Cross-Section of Community Violation Claim in Jury Selection, by Dale Chappell
Ohio Supreme Court Announces State Cannot Raise Fourth Amendment Standing Issue for First Time on Appeal, by Douglas Ankney
Eleventh Circuit Holds Georgia's Terroristic Threats Statute Not Violent Felony for ACCA, by Dale Chappell
New York Court of Appeals Reverses Conviction Where Trial Court Negotiated Cooperation Agreement with Codefendant, by Anthony Accurso
Nation's First-Ever Nonprofit Forensics Laboratory Coming to Utah, by Douglas Ankney
Hawai'i Supreme Court: Time Spent in Arizona Prison Counts Toward Speedy Trial Rule in Hawai'i, by Anthony Accurso
Eleventh Circuit: Selling Body Armor Doesn't Satisfy Sentencing Guidelines' Definition of 'Use', by Douglas Ankney
Fourth Circuit: Magistrate's Failure to Warn of ACCA Enhancement Was Plain Error, by Douglas Ankney
Ninth Circuit Vacates Unconstitutionally Vague Supervised-Release Conditions, by David M. Reutter
Hawai'i Supreme Court Rules Search Warrant Failed to Satisfy the Particularity Requirement for Multiple-Occupancy Dwellings, by Douglas Ankney
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court: When Exit Order is Unlawful, Evidence Obtained from Subsequent Search Must be Suppressed, by Douglas Ankney
First Step Act Earned-Time Credits are Coming ... Eventually and Only to Some Prisoners, by Dale Chappell
Alaska Supreme Court: Forcing a Defendant to Testify Is Structural Error Requiring Automatic Reversal, by Douglas Ankney
California Court of Appeal: Electronics Searching Condition Struck in Mandatory Supervision Case, by Anthony Accurso
Nevada Supreme Court: Parole Board May Petition To Modify Life Sentence, by Anthony Accurso
Colorado Supreme Court Clarifies and Modifies Analytical Framework for Proportionality Reviews, by Douglas Ankney
Attacking the Guilty Plea: The 'Voluntarily and Knowingly Made' Standard, by Dale Chappell
Hawai'i Supreme Court Announces Degree of 'Restraint' Necessary to Support Kidnapping Conviction, by Douglas Ankney
Prosecutorial Misconduct: Justice Denied as the System Turns a Blind Eye, by Christopher Zoukis