Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03710/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03710-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Todd Deon Holmes
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

Counsel notes that Holmes also wishes to raise a claim of ineffective assistance

of counsel, but any such claim should be deferred to proceedings under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255. See United States v. Looking Cloud, 419 F.3d 781, 788-89 (8th Cir. 2005)

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-3710

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Arkansas.

Todd Deon Holmes, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: August 7, 2006

Filed: August 23, 2006 

___________

Before RILEY, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Todd Deon Holmes appeals the sentence the district court imposed after he

pleaded guilty to escaping from the custody of an institutional facility where he was

confined pursuant to a federal criminal judgment, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 751(a)

and 4082(a). For reversal, Holmes argues that the district court did not afford him an

opportunity to address the court before sentencing him, as required by Federal Rule

of Criminal Procedure 32(i)(4)(A)(ii).1

 The government counters that Holmes was

Appellate Case: 05-3710 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/23/2006 Entry ID: 2081386
(court will not consider ineffective-assistance claims on direct appeal except in

exceptional cases where district court has developed appropriate record on

ineffectiveness issue or where result would be plain miscarriage of justice).

-2-

able to speak on his own behalf when entering his guilty plea, before being sentenced

at the same hearing. 

We vacate the sentence, because the district court did not substantially comply

with Rule 32(i)(4)(A)(ii) merely by offering Holmes the opportunity to discuss the

factual basis for his guilty plea. Cf. United States v. Griggs, 431 F.3d 1110, 1113-14

(8th Cir. 2005). As in Griggs, 431 F.3d at 1114 n.4, we do not reach the question of

which standard of review applies, because the government does not argue that the

plain-error standard should apply or that any violation of the rule was harmless,

conceding instead that a violation of the rule requires remand. E.g., United States v.

Booker, 375 F.3d 508, 515 (7th Cir. 2004) (“Because the government does not argue

that Booker’s Sixth Amendment challenge to the guidelines was forfeited by not being

made in the district court, we need not consider the application of the doctrine of plain

error to challenges inspired by the Blakely decision.” (internal citations omitted)),

aff’d, 543 U.S. 220 (2005); United States v. Garcia, 406 F.3d 527, 529 n.3 (8th Cir.

2005) (holding error not harmless where government made no effort to argue

harmlessness). But cf. Lufkins v. Leapley, 965 F.2d 1477, 1481 (8th Cir. 1992)

(holding that court may overlook government’s waiver of harmless error argument in

certain circumstances).

Accordingly, we vacate Holmes’s sentence and remand for resentencing

following allocution.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-3710 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/23/2006 Entry ID: 2081386