Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca3-08-01799/USCOURTS-ca3-08-01799-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Evrol S. Dean
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

No. 08-1799

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

EVROL S. DEAN,

 Appellant

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of New Jersey

D.C. Criminal No. 06-cr-528-1

(Honorable Stanley R. Chesler)

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

January 11, 2010

Before: SCIRICA, Chief Judge, BARRY and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

(Filed: January 29, 2010)

OPINION OF THE COURT

SCIRICA, Chief Judge.

Defendant Evrol S. Dean pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act

robbery (18 U.S.C. § 1951(a)) and to knowingly and wilfully using a firearm during a

Case: 08-1799 Document: 003110002196 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/29/2010
2

crime of violence (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)). He was sentenced to a total of 145 months

imprisonment. Dean appeals both his guilty plea and sentence. We will affirm.

I.

While employed with Dunbar Armored Car, Dean aided two co-conspirators in

gaining access to and robbing an armored vehicle he was driving. While Dean and his

partner entered a bank in Livingston, New Jersey to pick up a deposit, Dean left one of

the vehicle’s rear doors unlocked. His co-conspirators, armed with handguns, entered the

armored car and hid. When Dean and his partner returned to the vehicle, the coconspirators told Dean to drive away from the bank and ordered his partner not to move. 

Dean’s partner attempted to thwart the robbery by drawing his own weapon and was shot

twice. He was saved only by his bullet-proof vest. Police apprehended Dean and his coconspirators after a high-speed chase.

Dean and his co-conspirators were charged in a four count Indictment. Dean was

charged in three of those counts: Count One conspiracy to commit armed robbery (18

U.S.C. § 1951(a)); Count Two armed robbery (18 U.S.C. §§ 1951(a) and 1952) and Count

Three knowingly and wilfully using a firearm during a crime of violence (18 U.S.C. §

924(c)(1)(A)).

Dean entered a plea agreement as to Counts One and Three. During the plea

proceeding, the Assistant United States Attorney misstated the term of supervised release

on Count Three as three years rather than five years. Nonetheless, the plea agreement

Case: 08-1799 Document: 003110002196 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/29/2010
 The District Court had subject matter jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3231. We have 1

jurisdiction over Dean’s appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a). 

We review alleged errors without contemporaneous objection for plain error. 

United States v. Lessner, 498 F.3d 185, 192 (3d Cir. 2007) (citing Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b)

& United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55, 58-59 (2002)). Plain error occurs when (1) an

error is committed; (2) that error is plain; and (3) it affected defendant’s substantial rights. 

Id. (citing United States v. Stevens, 223 F.3d 239, 242 (3d Cir. 2000)). However, we have

discretion in deciding whether or not to correct a plain error. Id. (citing United States v.

Campbell, 295 F.3d 398, 404 (3d Cir. 2002)). “A court of appeals should exercise its

discretion [to correct plain error] only if the error seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity

or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. (internal quotations and citation

omitted).

3

recited the correct term of supervised release as five years. Responding to the District

Court’s questions, Dean assured the court that he had discussed the agreement with his

attorney. The District Court found Dean’s plea knowing, voluntary and intelligent. 

At sentencing, the District Court correctly identified the substance of the violations

but inadvertently referred to Count Three as Count Two and Count Five. After the clerk

alerted the District Court to the error, it noted every reference to Count Five should be

changed to Count Three. No correction to the Count Two references was made.

Dean challenges the validity of his sentence, the voluntariness and intelligence of

his plea agreement, and the effectiveness of his trial counsel. 

1

II.

 Dean argues the District Court erred by mistakenly referring to Count Three, to

which he plead guilty, as Count Five, for which he was not charged. Dean also asserts

Case: 08-1799 Document: 003110002196 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/29/2010
4

he was misled about the length of his supervised release. Dean contends these “errors”

render his guilty plea constitutionally deficient. We disagree. 

A plea agreement is knowing, voluntary and intelligent if the record reveals the

defendant was properly advised of his constitutional rights and the charges against him. 

See Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 242 (1969) (citing Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S.

368, 387 (1964)). 

The District Court thoroughly inquired into Dean’s understanding of his plea

agreement to ensure that he made a knowing, voluntary and intelligent plea. Dean’s plea

agreement accurately reflects the two charges as the only counts to which Dean would

plead guilty. The District Court correctly explained to Dean the charges to which he was

to plead guilty. Moreover, the District Court correctly sentenced Dean on the charges

described in the plea agreement and at the plea hearing. Therefore, Dean fails to show he

did not enter his plea agreement knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently. 

Second, Dean argues the Government’s error in identifying the incorrect

supervised release term is cause to vacate and remand. The District Court committed

plain error, Dean claims, by failing to correct the Government’s misstatement and

adopting the Government’s assertion that Dean’s maximum term of supervised release

was three years. Dean claims this misstatement violated Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(1).

To succeed on a Rule 11 claim, a defendant must demonstrate by “a reasonable

probability that, but for the error, he would not have entered the plea.” United States v.

Case: 08-1799 Document: 003110002196 Page: 4 Date Filed: 01/29/2010
5

Corso, 549 F.3d 921, 929 (3d Cir. 2008) (quoting United States v. Dominguez Benitez,

542 U.S. 74, 83 (2004)). The alleged misstatement did not affect Dean’s substantial

rights. Dean offers no evidence nor even asserts that had he heard the correct term of

supervised release he would not have entered into the plea agreement. Furthermore,

Dean’s plea agreement correctly states the term of supervised release as five years. 

Accordingly, the misstatement did not substantially affect Dean’s rights and is not

grounds for vacating the plea agreement. 

III.

Dean also attacks the procedural and substantive reasonableness of his sentence. 

Dean contends the District Court failed to properly weigh the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. 

We review a sentence for reasonableness, considering both its procedural and substantive

elements. United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 261 (2005). 

To be procedurally reasonable, a district court must give meaningful consideration

to the § 3553(a) factors. Lessner, 498 F.3d at 203. As explained in United States v. Rita,

a district court “should set forth enough to satisfy the appellate court that he has

considered the parties’ arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising his own legal

decisionmaking authority.” 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007) (citing United States v. Taylor, 487

U.S. 326, 336-37 (1988)) (internal quotations omitted). The sentencing judge need not

explicitly comment on every factor if “the record makes clear the court took the factors

into account in sentencing.” United States v. Howe, 543 F.3d 128, 137 (3d Cir. 2008). 

Case: 08-1799 Document: 003110002196 Page: 5 Date Filed: 01/29/2010
 Dean also argues the District Court did not adequately consider his diminished 2

mental capacity. However, the record illustrates the District Court considered and

rejected Dean’s argument pertaining to his low IQ. 

We note the District Court’s consideration of Dean’s diminished mental capacity

within the § 3553(a) factors, as opposed to within the Guidelines calculation as a

departure, is consistent with our opinion in King, 454 F.3d at 196. Similarly, the District

Court would have denied Dean’s motion for downward departure under § 5K2.13 of the

Guidelines. In contrast to United States v. Lofink, 564 F.3d 232, 240-41(3d Cir. 2009),

the District Court did not refuse to hear Dean’s departure motion in calculating the

Guidelines and it is clear the District Court denied Dean’s motion under its discretionary

authority.

6

Furthermore, “a sentencing factor may overlap with a basis for potential Guidelines

departure.” Lessner, 498 F.3d at 203 (citing United States v. King, 454 F.3d 187, 194-95

(3d Cir. 2006)). 

The record demonstrates the District Court went to great lengths to explain its

sentence in the context of § 3553(a)’s factors. Although noting it was a first event, the

court found the offense grave (18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a)(1) and (2)(A)), that deterrence was

important (§ 3553(a)(2)(B)) and that Dean was more culpable than his co-defendants

because he plotted the crime (§§ 3553(a)(3) and (6)). Because the District Court

adequately considered the § 3553(a) factors, Dean’s sentence is not unreasonable. 

2

 Next, Dean contends the District Court’s misstatement of the Count numbers,

despite correction, renders his sentence improper. Dean provides no support for his

argument and we find this position to be without merit. The District Court clearly

understood the charges, correctly calculated the applicable Guideline range, analyzed the

§ 3553(a) factors and reached a reasonable sentence. 

Case: 08-1799 Document: 003110002196 Page: 6 Date Filed: 01/29/2010
7

IV.

Finally, Dean claims he received ineffective assistance of counsel during both the

pleading and sentencing phases. Generally, the proper avenue for challenging the

effectiveness of trial counsel is on collateral review. United States v. Theodoropoulos,

866 F.2d 587, 598 (3d Cir. 1989), overruled on other grounds by United States v. Price,

76 F.3d 526 (3d Cir. 1996). Therefore, we do not address this issue on direct appeal.

V.

 For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the judgment of conviction and

sentence.

Case: 08-1799 Document: 003110002196 Page: 7 Date Filed: 01/29/2010