# United States v. Dominguez Benitez

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article.
United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74 (2004), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on the issue of when a trial court's violation of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which governs plea bargains, mandates reversal of a conviction entered after the defendant pleads guilty.Warning: template has been deprecated.

## Concurring Opinion

    Scalia
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
UNITED STATES v. DOMINGUEZ BENITEZ
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
(a) When a defendant is dilatory in raising Rule 11 error, reversal is unwarranted unless the error is plain. United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55, 63. Except for certain structural errors undermining the criminal proceeding's fairness as a whole, relief for error is tied to prejudicial effect, and the standard phrased as "error that affects substantial rights," as used in Rule 52, means error with a prejudicial effect on a judicial proceeding's outcome. See Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750. Kotteakos held that to affect "substantial rights," an error must have "substantial and injurious effect or inﬂuence in determining ​the . . . verdict." Id., at 776. Where the burden of demonstrating prejudice (or materiality) is on the defendant seeking relief, this Court has invoked a similar standard, which requires "a reasonable probability that, but for [the error claimed], the result of the proceeding would have been different" is required. United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 682 (opinion of Blackmun, J.). For defendants such as Dominguez, the burden of establishing entitlement to plain error relief should not be too easy: First, the standard should enforce the policies underpinning Rule 52(b) generally, to encourage timely objections and reduce wasteful reversals by demanding strenuous exertion to get relief for unpreserved error, see Vonn, supra, at 73; and second, it should respect the particular importance of the ﬁnality of guilty pleas, which usually rest on a defendant's profession of guilt in open court, and are indispensable in the modern criminal justice system's operation, see United States v. Timmreck, 441 U.S. 780, 784. Pp. 80–83.
(b) The Ninth Circuit's test in this case fell short. Its ﬁrst element (whether the error was "minor or technical") requires no examination of the omitted warning's effect on a defendant's decision, a failing repeated to a significant extent by the test's second element (whether the defendant understood the rights at issue when he pleaded guilty). That court's standard does not allow consideration of evidence tending to show that a misunderstanding was inconsequential to a defendant's decision, or evidence indicating the relative significance of other facts that may have borne on his choice regardless of any Rule 11 error. Nor does it consider the overall strength of the Government's case. When, as here, the record shows both a controlled drug sale to an informant and a confession, one can fairly ask what a defendant seeking to with draw his plea thought he could gain by going to trial. The point is not to second guess the defendant's actual decision, but to enquire whether the omitted warning would have made the difference required by the standard of reasonable probability; it is hard to see here how the warning could have affected Dominguez's assessment of his strategic position. Also, the plea agreement, read to Dominguez in his native Spanish, specifically warned that he could not withdraw his plea if the court refused to accept the Government's recommendations; this fact, uncontested by Dominguez, tends to show that the Rule 11 error made no difference to the outcome here. Pp. 83–86.
310 F.3d 1221, reversed and remanded.
Souter, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and Stevens, O'Connor, Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg, and Breyer, JJ., joined. Scalia, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, post, p. 86.
​Dan Himmelfarb argued the cause for the United States. With him on the briefs were Solicitor General Olson, Assistant Attorney General Wray, and Deputy Solicitor General Dreeben.
Myra D. Mossman, by appointment of the Court, 540 U.S. 1175, argued the cause and filed a brief for respondent.