Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-88-01742/USCOURTS-ca10-88-01742-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael A. Gocke
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

FILED 

United Stares C.ourr of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

JUL 16 1990 

&OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 88-1742 

v. 

MICHAEL A. GOCKE, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

(D.C. Nos. 84-1030-02-T 

and 88-3081-T) 

(D. Kan.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LOGAN, SEYMOUR, and TACHA, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Prose defendant Michael A. Gocke appeals the district 

court's denial of his motion to modify his sentence under Fed. R. 

Crim. P. 35 and his motion to vacate his sentence under 28 u.s.c. 

§ 2255 (1988). We affirm. 

*This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 88-1742 Document: 010110038438 Date Filed: 07/16/1990 Page: 1 
Gocke was indicted in 1984 on a charge of conspiracy to 

counterfeit in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 (1982), a crime 

carrying a maximum prison sentence of five years. He was 

arrested, released on bond, and absconded sometime in 1985 after 

extended pretrial proceedings. In 1987, Gocke was located in 

Denmark and extradited. His trial was set for December 1, 1987. 

, On November 24, 1987, the Government filed its notice and 

motion to qualify Gocke as a Dangerous Special Offender under 18 

u.s.c. § 3575 (1982), repealed QY Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, 

Pub. L. No. 98-473 §§ 212(a)(2), 98 Stat. 1987 (1984), amended QY 

Sentencing Reform Amendments Act of 1985, Pub. L. No. 99-217, § 4, 

99 Stat. 1728 (1985). On the second day of trial, Gocke 

negotiated a settlement and the district court heard, approved, 

and entered an "Alford" plea. See North Carolina v. Alford, 400 

U.S. 25 (1970) (allowing plea even where defendant does not admit 

guilt). As part of the agreement, the Government agreed to drop 

its motion t o qualify Gocke as a Dangerous Special Offender, in 

effect reducing his possible exposure from twenty-five years 

imprisonment to five years. The Government also agreed to 

recommend that Gocke serve only four years. Although Gocke 

insisted that he lacked the requisite intent to conspire, he 

recognized in the plea hearing that the Government's evidence 

could very well result in his conviction. The district court 

accepted the plea and sentenced Gocke to four years imprisonment. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 88-1742 Document: 010110038438 Date Filed: 07/16/1990 Page: 2 
Slightly more than a month after his sentencing, Gocke 

through his counsel filed a notice of appeal and motion to docket 

the appeal out of time. The motion was denied, and we affirmed 

the denial on April 26, 1989. Approximately one month later, 

Gocke filed his 12!.Q se motions, the denial of which he presently 

appeals. 

Gocke first attacks the voluntariness of his plea. He argues 

that his plea should be vacated because the prosecution unlawfully 

used the possibility of his qualifying as a Dangerous Special 

Of fender as a bargaining tool in plea negotiations. According to 

Gocke, this s tatute did not apply to his case because it was 

repealed effective November 1, 1987, three weeks before the 

Government filed its motion to have Gocke so qualified. He fails 

to note, however, that the Dangerous Special Offender law was 

repealed only as to crimes committed after November 1, 1987. See 

Warden v. Marrero, 417 U.S. 653, 661 (1974) (1 U.S.C. § 109 bars 

''application of ameliorative criminal sentencing laws repealing 

harsher ones in force at the time of the commission of an 

offense"); United States v. Towne, 870 F.2d 880, 887 (2d Cir. 

1989) (18 U.S.C. § 3575 properly applied to crimes alleged in 1986 

indictment even though repealed prior to defendant's sentencing). 

The Government filed its indictment against Gocke in 1984, 

alleging criminal activity occurring years before the effective 

date of section 3575's repeal. Because section 3575 could be 

-3-

Appellate Case: 88-1742 Document: 010110038438 Date Filed: 07/16/1990 Page: 3 
applied to Gocke, its use as a bargaining tool in plea 

negotiations was proper. See Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 

357, 363 (1978). 

Gocke also argues that the Sentencing Guidelines, created by 

the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, should have controlled his 

sentence. This argument is really the flip side of his prior 

contention, and it fails for the same reason. The Guidelines 

apply to crimes committed after November 1, 1987. See United 

States v. Roberts, 898 F.2d 1465, 1466 n.l (10th Cir. 1990). 

Gocke pled to a crime alleged to have been committed no later than 

1984, well before the effective date of the Guidelines. 

Finally, Gocke presents two related arguments. First, he 

contends that the district court never advised him of his right to 

appeal. He also contends that his counsel never advised him that 

he had such a right and in fact told him that an Alford plea was 

nonappealable. Later Gocke, through his counsel, attempted 

unsuccessfully to file a direct appeal out of time. He now claims 

that as a result he was denied his right to appeal and that he was 

represented by ineffective counsel. 

We have held that counsel's failure to advise defendant of a 

right to appeal after a guilty plea is not in itself ineffective 

assistance of counsel. See Laycock v. New Mexico, 880 F.2d 1184, 

1187-88 (10th Cir. 1989). In this particular case, moreover, 

-4-

Appellate Case: 88-1742 Document: 010110038438 Date Filed: 07/16/1990 Page: 4 
Gocke has demonstrated no prejudice caused by his counsel's 

performance. See Osborne v. Shillinger, 861 F.2d 612, 625-26 

(10th Cir. 1988). We accordingly reject Gocke's ineffective 

counsel argument. 

As for the district court's alleged failure to advise Gocke 

of his right to appeal, the court has no such obligation. The 

version of the Federal Rules applicable to offenses committed 

prior to November 1, 1987 specifically states that "[t]here shall 

be no duty on the court to advise the defendant of any right of 

appeal after sentence is imposed following a plea of guilty or 

nolo contendere." Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(a)(2), 18 U.S.C. app. VII 

32(a)(2) (1982); see also Crow v. United States, 397 F.2d 284, 285 

(10th Cir. 1968) (sentencing court has no duty to advise of right 

to appeal after guilty plea). Moreover, the district court's 

alleged failure to notify Gocke of his right to appeal his plea 

appears completely harmless. Whatever defects Gocke may have 

believed existed in the negotiation and acceptance of his plea and 

his sentencing have been determined to be wholly meritless. These 

arguments would have fared no better if they were pursued by means 

of a direct appeal. 

-5-

Appellate Case: 88-1742 Document: 010110038438 Date Filed: 07/16/1990 Page: 5 
. .. 

We therefore AFFIRM the district court. The mandate shall 

issue forthwith. 

-6-

Entered for the Court 

Stephanie K. Seymour 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 88-1742 Document: 010110038438 Date Filed: 07/16/1990 Page: 6