FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTH CI RCUI T APR 29, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 9- 15 49 5

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock et Nos . 09 -0 02 12 -CV-T-1 7- MAP

02 -0 04 24 -CR- T-1

KABIL ANTON D JENASEVIC,

Pet it io ne r-Ap pe ll an t,

ve rs us
UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A,

Res po nd en t-Ap pe ll ee.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Mi dd le Dis tri ct of F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Ap ril 29 , 20 11 )
Befo re MAR TIN, FAY and BLACK, Cir cu it Ju dg es

. PER CURI AM:Kab il Ant on Dje n a s e v i c, a fed eral pr is on er, ap pe al s th ro ug h co un se l, th e

di st ric t co ur t’s d en ia l of his pr o se m ot io n to va cat e pu rs ua nt to 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 5.

In hi s or ig in al pe ti ti on , Djenas ev ic all eg ed th at th e tr ia l an d ap pe ll at e co un se l were
in effe c t i v e , a mon g ot he r th in gs , f or fai li ng to ob

ject th at cert ai n co m

m en ts th at th e
di st ric t co ur t m ad e at a pr e-co nv ic ti on su pp res si on he ari ng am o u n t e d to
im pe rm is si bl e pa rti ci pa ti on in th e pl ea ne go t i a ti on s. The di st ric t co ur t de ni ed th is
cl ai m on two ba se s: (1 ) it was no t a co gn iz ab le gr ou nd fo r co ll at eral at ta ck ; an d (2 ) 1

ev en if co gn iz ab le , Djenas ev ic fai le d to sh ow th at it res ul te d in an y ha rm

. The co ur t

m ad e a se pa rat e fin di ng th at it di d no t pa rti ci pa te in th e p l e a di sc us si on s, bu t was
in st ead tryin g to “ st res s[ ] th e be ne fit s of co op erat io n” an d he lp Djenas ev ic “ se e th e

op ti on s he ha d.” W e gr an te d a cert ifi cat e of ap pe al ab il it y (“ COA”) as to th e
fo ll owi ng is su e:
W he th er th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in fi n d i n g th at

Djenas ev ic ’s at to rn ey di d no t pr ov id e in effe ct iv e as si st an ce of cou ns el by fai li ng to arg ue , be fo re the di st ric t co ur t an d on d ire ct ap pe al , th at th e di st ric t co ur t im pr op erl y pa rti ci pa te d in pl ea ne go ti at io ns , in vi ol at io n o f Fed .R.Cri m .P. 11 (c)( 1)

.

Appellant’s c halleng e is cog nizable as it goe s directly to the voluntary

nature of his 1 g uilty plea.
2Afte r rev ie win g th e reco rd , st ud y in g th e br ie fs an d ha vi ng th e be ne fit of or al

arg um en t, we fin d a vi ol at io n of Ru le 11 an d in effe ct iv en es s of co un se l th at req ui res

rev ers al an d we r em an d t he cas e wit h i ns tru ct io ns

. Su b st an ti ve ly, th e Fed eral Ru le s of Cri m in al Pro ced ur e m an da te th at “ an

at to rn ey fo r th e go ve rn m en t an d th e de fen da nt ’s at to rn ey , or th e de fen da nt whe n

pr oc eed in g pr o se , m ay di sc u ss an d reac h a pl ea ag reem en t. Th e co ur t mus t no t

pa rt ic ip at e in th es e d is cu ss io ns

. .” Fed .R.Cri m .P. 11 (c)( 1) (em ph as is ad de d) . Rul e
11 (c)( 1) is a “ br ig ht li ne ru le ” th at pr oh ib it s “ th e pa rti ci pa ti on of th e jud ge in pl ea

ne go ti at io ns un de r an y ci rcu m st an ces

. . .[an d] ad m it s of no ex cep ti on s.” Uni te d

St at es v. Jo hn so n , 89 F.3 d 77 8, 78 3 (11 Ci r. 19 96 ) (q uo ta ti on om it te d)

. Alt ho ug h th

ot he r ci rcu it s reco gn iz e ha rm le ss erro r in th e co nt ex t of jud ic ia l pa rti ci pa ti on , we do

no t. Uni te d S ta te s v. Ca sa ll as , 59 F.3 d 1 17 3, 1 17 7 n .8 (1 1 Cir . 19 95 ). Mo reo ve r, th jud ic ia l pa rti ci pa ti on is pl ai n e r r o r fo r whi ch th e “ de fen da nt ne ed no t sh ow act ua l

pr ejud ic e,” U

n i t e d St at es v. Co rb it t , 99 6 F.2 d 11 32 , 11 35 (1 1 Ci r. 19 93 ). “ The th

po te nt ia l fo r co erci on is gr eat es t whe n a de fen da nt real iz es t ha t th e jud ge who is

ex pr es si ng an op in io n .

. . th at he sh ou ld pl ead , is th e sa m e pe rs on who wil l pres id e

at hi s t ria l, an d, i f co nv ic te d, h is sen te nc in g.” Ca sa ll as , 59 F.3d at 1 17 8 n .9.
The co ll oq uy in qu es ti on to ok pl ace du rin g a he ari ng he ld on Ju ly 28 , 20 05 , to

co ns id er app el la nt ’s m ot io n to su pp res s. W e ne ed no t set fo rth th e co m m en ts m ad e

3by th e di st ric t jud ge si nc e du rin g or al arg um en t th e go ve rn m en t co nc ed ed th ere was

a cl ear vi ol at io n of Ru le 11 an d ou r pr eced en t. Thi s co nd uc t by t he di st ric t jud ge 2

ap pa ren tl y ha d th e de si red res ul t as ap pe ll an t ch an ge d hi s pl ea to gu il ty on Mo nd ay , Aug us t 1 , 20 05 , th e d ay

sch ed ul ed for th e tr ia l t o b eg in

. 3

Im m ed ia te ly th erea fte r ap pe ll an t an d h i s c o u ns el ha d se rio us di sa gr eem en ts

ov er ho w to pr oc eed

. Fo ll owi ng se ve ral he ari ng s, th e m ag is tra te jud ge ap po int ed new

co un se l. Djenas ev ic , th ro ug h su bs ti tu te co un se l, m ov ed to wit hd raw hi s gu il ty pl ea. He

co nt en de d th at he di d no t free ly or in te ll ig en tl y en te r th e pl ea. He fu rth er co nt en de d

th at he was no t act ua ll y gu il ty an d di d no t in te nd t o w a i v e an y rig ht s. The

go ve rn m en t op po se d th e m ot io n. The co ur t de ni ed Djenas ev ic ’s m ot io n wit h o ut a
he ari ng , fin di ng th at hi s fact ua l al le ga ti on s la ck ed a su ffi ci en t ba si s an d th at hi s pl ea

was vo lu nt ary. Djenas ev ic ap pe ared fo r se nt en ci ng in Mar c h 2 0 0 6

. The di st ric t co ur t
ul ti m at el y

sen te nc ed hi m

to a to ta l o f 32 4 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t o n a ll co un ts

. Djenas ev ic ap pe al ed

. On a p p e a l, he arg ue d, th ro ug h co un se l, th at hi s gu il ty pl ea sh ou ld be se t as id e be cau se : (1 ) t he go ve rn m en t, by co nt es ti ng hi s acce pt an ce

We appre ciate the profe ssional candor of the Assistant United States Attorney

. 2 The motion to suppress was de nied on J uly 29, 2005. 3

4of res po ns ib il it y , br ok e a pr om is e es se nt ia l to th e pl ea; an d (2 ) hi s pl ea was ba se d on

tri al co un se l’s fact ua ll y in accu rat e st at em en t t ha t a t reat y wou ld all ow h im

to se rv e
h i s s e nt en ce ab ro ad

. He al so ch al le ng ed hi s se nt en ce. Thi s Co ur t affi rm ed

. S e e
Uni te d St at es v. Djen as evi c , 24 8 Fed .App x. 13 5, 13 6 (1 1 Ci r. 20 07 ) (u np ub li sh ed ). th

To th e ex te nt we co ns tru ed Djenas ev ic to as se rt in effe ct iv e as si st an ce of co un se l, we
di sm is se d th e cl ai m wit ho ut pr ejud ic e to be reas se rte d in a co ll at eral at ta ck

. Thi s he
ha s d on e.
In rep ly to th e go ve rn m en t’s res po ns e to hi s § 22 55 m ot io n, Djenas ev ic
rei te rat ed th at he pl e d gu il ty du e, in pa rt, to im pe rm is si bl e jud ic ia l in te rfer en ce. A

co erce d pl ea, he co nt en de d, was op en to co ll at eral at ta ck

. In a su pp or ti ng affi da vi t,
he st at ed th at he d i d n o t i n te ll ig en tl y pl ead gu il ty an d co un se l di d no t pr ot ect hi s
in te res ts du rin g th e pr oc es s, de pr iv in g hi m of effe ct iv e as si st an ce and res ul ti ng in a

co erce d p le a.
The go ve rn m en t, whi le co nc ed in g a vi ol at io n of Ru le 11 , ur ge s th e ne ed fo r a
he ari ng as to th e in effe ct iv en es s of co un se l to de te rm in e whe n co un se l kn ew ab ou t
th e rem ark s of th e tri al jud ge an d whe th er th ere w a s in fact in effe ct iv en es s in

rep res en ta ti on

. W e fin d su ch un ne ces sa ry , ho wev er, si nc e ap pe ll an t’s co un se l at th e
ti m e was th e on e to who m th e tri al jud ge ’s co m m en ts were di rect ed du rin g a si de ba r

co nf eren ce at th e he ari ng on Ju ly 28 , 20 05

. The on ly co nc lu si on we can dr aw fro m

5th e reco rd is th at sh or tl y aft er th e ch an ge of pl ea on Aug us t 1, 20 05 , ap pe ll an t

ch an ge d hi s m in d an d to ld co un se l he wan te d to wit hd raw hi s gu il t y p le a. Rat he r
th an pu r s u e t h a t co ur se , co un se l fil ed a m ot io n to wit hd raw. Und er th es e 4

ci rcu m st an ces , it was in effe ct iv en es s of co un se l to no t fil e a pr op er m ot io n req ue st in g

su ch rel ie f ba se d u po n t hi s cl ear v io la ti on of R ul e 1 1.

W he n a Ru le 11 (c)( 1) vi ol at io n req ui res rem an d, as th is cas e do es , “ th e cas e
sh ou ld be reas si gn ed to an ot he r jud ge ev en if th ere is no ev id en ce th at th e jud ge is
vi nd ic ti ve or bi as ed , as th e m ean s to ex te nd th e pr op hylact ic sc he m e es ta bl is he d by

Ru le 11 an d to pr ev en t th e po ss ib le m is -impres si on crea te d by th e jud ge ’s

pa rti ci pa ti on .” Co rb it t , 99 6 F .2d at 1 13 5. 5

Co ns eq ue nt ly, we rev ers e th e ru li ng of th e di st ric t co ur t, re m an d t he cas e fo r

reas s i g n ment to a ne w jud ge

. The ne w di st ric t jud ge sh al l co nv en e a he ari ng an d
de te rm in e whe th er th e pe ti ti on er wis he s to wit hd raw hi s gu il ty pl ea. If th e Pet it io ne r
el ect s to wit hd raw hi s gu il ty pl ea, th e di st ric t co ur t s ha ll va cat e hi s co nv ic ti on an d

se nt en ce an d p ro ceed acco rd in gl y
. REVERSED an d R EMANDED with in st ru ct io ns

.

Actually there wer e two motions to withdraw. The f irst was denie d; the second w as 4 g rante d. We do not question the moti vation of the district cour t or the intent to fully

inform the 5 appellant of

his options. However, tha t does not excuse the er ror.
6