Filed: Jan. 21, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Opinions of the United 2004 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 1-21-2004 USA v. Austin Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 03-2640 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2004 Recommended Citation "USA v. Austin" (2004). 2004 Decisions. Paper 1079. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2004/1079 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United Stat
Summary: Opinions of the United 2004 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 1-21-2004 USA v. Austin Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 03-2640 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2004 Recommended Citation "USA v. Austin" (2004). 2004 Decisions. Paper 1079. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2004/1079 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United State..
More
Opinions of the United
2004 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
1-21-2004
USA v. Austin
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 03-2640
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2004
Recommended Citation
"USA v. Austin" (2004). 2004 Decisions. Paper 1079.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2004/1079
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2004 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 03-2640
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
LAMONT AUSTIN,
Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Criminal No. 01-cr-00291-2)
District Court Judge: Honorable William W. Caldwell
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
January 13, 2004
Before: SLOVITER, RENDELL and ALDISERT, Circuit Judges.
(Filed: January 21, 2004)
OPINION OF THE COURT
RENDELL, Circuit Judge.
Lamont Austin pled guilty to a single count of unlawful possession and
distribution of crack cocaine. The District Court sentenced him to a term of
imprisonment of 240 months. Austin appeals, requesting that we reverse and remand the
judgment of conviction based on the District Court’s violation of Rule 11 of the Federal
Rules of Criminal Procedure. Specifically, Austin contends that, at his guilty plea
colloquy, the District Court failed to inform him that were he to plead not guilty, he
would have the right to assistance of counsel at trial and the opportunity to confront and
cross-examine witnesses at trial. Austin asserts that this omission amounted to a plain
error that affected his substantial rights.
The District Court had jurisdiction by virtue of 18 U.S.C. § 3231, and we exercise
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We will affirm.
Austin pled guilty to a single count of distribution and possession with intent to
distribute cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Although Austin faced up
to life imprisonment for his original charges, the plea agreement provided for a maximum
of 20 years imprisonment. At Austin’s guilty plea proceeding, while represented by
counsel, the District Court did not inform Austin that if he instead went to trial, he would
have the right to counsel and to confront any adverse witnesses.
Because Austin did not object below to the Rule 11 colloquy, his conviction may
be reversed only if the District Court committed plain error. United States v. Vonn, 535
US. 55 (2002); United States v. Dixon, 308 F.3d 229, 233-34 (3d Cir. 2002). To
demonstrate a commission of plain error, Austin shoulders the burden to satisfy a four-
part test. Austin must show that (1) the error was committed; (2) the error was clear and
obvious; and, (3) that the error affected his substantial rights.
Dixon, 208 F.3d at 234.
2
Having satisfied these elements, we may exercise our discretion to reverse a conviction
only if the error “seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial
proceedings.” Id. (quoting United States v. Stevens,
223 F.3d 239 (3d Cir. 2000)).
Before accepting a guilty plea, a district court must, in open court, inform a
defendant of the rights and consequences that attach to a decision to forgo a trial. Fed. R.
Crim. P. 11(b). In particular, Austin argues that the District Court violated Rule
11(b)(1)(D) and (E), which require a court to inform a defendant of “the right to be
represented by counsel—and if necessary have the court appoint counsel—at trial and at
every other stage of the proceeding” and “the right at trial to confront and cross-examine
adverse witnesses, to be protected from compelled self-incrimination, to testify and
present evidence, and to compel the attendance of witnesses.” The Government concedes
that the District Court did not heed to Rule 11(b)(1)(D) and (E). Consequently, Austin
has established the first element of the legal test, i.e., that an error was committed.
We need not labor over the second element, as to whether the District Court’s error
was clear and obvious, for we are certain that Austin has not satisfied the third critical
element of the test, which requires a showing that the error affected his substantial rights.
Arguing in circular fashion, Austin contends that the District Court’s failure to declare his
rights to counsel and confrontation affected his substantial rights because he was not
made aware of those rights. But, of course, under this approach, a mere violation of Rule
11(b) would satisfy this third element. The law, however, requires more.
3
An error that affects substantial rights is an error that results in prejudice to the
defendant. See United States v. Knobloch, 131 F.3d 366, 370 (3d Cir. 1997) (“It must
have affected the outcome of the district court proceedings.” (quoting United States v.
Olano,
507 U.S. 725, 734 (1993)). “In this context, the defendant must prove that, were it
not for the plain error committed by the District Court at the time of his plea, the outcome
of the proceedings would have been different.”
Dixon, 308 F.3d at 234. In Dixon, the
district court mistakenly informed the defendant that he faced up to 40 years in jail, when
the maximum penalty was 10 years. Although the defendant asserted that he might have
pled not guilty and faced a trial but for the district court’s error, we held that this was
insufficient to establish prejudice. To prevail, the defendant had to “clearly and
unmistakably assert[] that had he been correctly informed of the sentence he faced, he
would, in fact, have pled not guilty and gone to trial.”
Id. at 235. By contrast, Austin
does not even imply that the District Court’s error resulted in his choice to plead guilty.
Absent any assertion that his decision to plead guilty would have been different because
of the District Court’s omission, we conclude that the error did not substantially affect
Austin’s rights.
Having found that Austin failed to demonstrate that his rights were substantially
affected, we need not consider the fourth element, whether the error “seriously affected
the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. at 235-36 (quoting
United States v. Wolfe,
245 F.3d 257, 262 (3d Cir. 2001)). Therefore, we decline to find
4
plain error with respect to Austin’s plea.1 Accordingly, the judgment of conviction will
be AFFIRMED.
1
Austin refers us to cases in which Rule 11 omissions amounted to plain error.
United States v. Pena, 314 F.3d 1152 (9 th Cir. 2003) (failure to inform defendant of the
nature of the charges against him); United States v. Benitez,
310 F.3d 1221 (9 th Cir.
2002), cert. granted,
72 U.S.L.W. 3121 (U.S. Dec. 8, 2003) (No. 00-50181) (failure to
inform defendant that he could not withdraw a guilty plea if the court rejected the
sentencing recommendation in the plea agreement); United States v. Reyes,
300 F.3d 555
(5 th Cir. 2002) (failure to inform defendant of the sentencing guidelines). These
decisions from other circuits neither bind us nor are they relevant to the instant case. In
Pena, the defendant was not informed, either by the district court or the prosecutor, of the
nature of the charges against him. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit merely
followed an earlier decision that held that “[t]he defendant’s right to be informed of the
charges against him is at the core of Rule 11, which exists to ensure that guilty pleas are
knowing and voluntary. . . .” United States v. Longoria,
113 F.3d 975, 977 (9 th Cir.
1997). Fundamentally, one cannot be said to knowingly plead guilty to charges about
which one has not been properly informed. We cannot see how Pena would apply to the
District Court’s omission in Austin’s case. And, in Benitez, the Court of Appeals “based
[its] conclusion on the underlying principle that a defendant’s substantial rights are not
compromised if he receives the sentence for which he
bargained.” 310 F.3d at 1225
(noting that “if a court imposes the recommended sentence, its Rule 11 error is ‘merely
technical’”). By contrast, Austin’s guilty plea, negotiated by his counsel, secured him a
20-year sentence when he faced life imprisonment. It cannot be said that he did not
receive the sentence for which he bargained. Finally, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit’s decision in Reyes turned on the defendant’s showing that he would not have
pled guilty if not for the District Court’s
error. 300 F.3d at 561. Austin, however, has
made no such allegation, let alone a showing that he would have pled otherwise. None of
these decisions compel us to find plain error here.
5
TO THE CLERK OF COURT:
Please file the foregoing opinion.
/s/ Marjorie O. Rendell
Circuit Judge
6
