## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 08

- 3381 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. J EFFRY P OLA K, D e f e ndan t

-Appe l l ant
. Appeal from the United States District Court fo r the E astern Di stricto f Wisc onsin
. No . 08 C R 140

—Rudo lphT. Rand a, Chie f Judge .
A RG UE D F EB RU AR Y 25, 2009

— D ECI DE D J UL Y 20, 2009

Befo re F LA UM, W I L L I A MS, a nd T INDER, C ircu it Judges . W I L L I A MS, C ircu it Judge. W e a re f aced with an ap p ea l ba se d on a s en te n c in g c ou rt ’s fa ilu re to fu lly adhere to the r equi re m ents ofRule 11 o fthe Fe d er al Ru l e s o fCr i mi na lP r o c e du r e . J e ffr y P o l a kc o nt e nd s that b ec au se th e d ist ric t c ou rtfailed to inq u ire ab ou t h is knowle dge of hi s pl ea agr eem ent’ s a pp el l ate waive r bef or e a ccepti ng hi s guil ty ple a, we m ust rem and fo r r es en tencing
. Al th o ug h the di st r i ctc o ur t’ s pl ea c o l l o quy2 N o. 08

- 3381

wa s d e fi c i e n t, w e fi n d th a tt he t o t a l i t y o fth e c i r c u msta nces shows that Pol ak’ s a cceptance o fthe ple a a gr eeme n t, c o mpl e t e wi th a p p e l l a t e wa i v e r, wa s kn o wi ng and vol untary, so we affi rm hi s s entence
.

I . B AC KGR OUND On A pri l4, 20 08, Je ff ryPol ak, an ho nor abl y di schar ged M ar i ne Co r ps ve te r an, wal k ed i nt o M i l wauk ee ’ s Ve te r an s A ff ai rs M edi cal Center and wal ked out w i th the VA ’ s fi ftytw o i nch fl at scr een te l evi si on. The pol i ce a pp re hended Pol ak, w h ose r ecenthi sto ryhad bee n m ar re d by a l cohol ab u s e a n d a st rin g of p et ty cr im es . Po lak im m ed iat ely co nfes se d a nd a g r ee d t o pl ea d g ui l tyt o a o ne - co unt i nf o r m at i o n in w ha t the pr o se cut o r de sc r ibe d a s th e qu ickest p lea agreem en t in his career. The ple a a gr eem ent c ontained a st andard appell ate w ai verunder wh i ch Pola k ag re ed to waive al lappel l ate ri g h t s , in c lu d in g t h e rig h t t o c on te st h is s en te n c e. In addi ti o n, among o th er sa fegua r ds, th e agr ee m en t re quir ed Pol ak to affi rm that h i s “ att or ney ha [ d] r evi ew ed eve ryp a r to fthi s a g r e e men twi th me a nd h a [ d] a dv i sed m e o f th e im p lica t i o n s of th e s en te n c in g g u id elin es .” During the pl ea c o l l o quy, the di st r i ctc o ur t r ev i ewe d the rights t h a t Polak w as ced ing by p lead ing guilty, ascertained that hi s a tto rneyhad re view ed the ple a a gr eem en t wi thhi m , que st i o ne d whetherhe was pl ea di ng gui l ty vo lu ntar i l y, as ked i fhe was happy w i th the as si sta nc e o fhi s co uns el, and di sc us se d the maxi m um penal ti es w i th hi m . Then, the cour t accepte d his gu il ty ple a.N o. 08

- 3381 3 A fterthe cour t t oo k hi s p lea , the f ol l owing exchange o c c ur r e d: Go v e r n me n t : Y o u r h o n o r, s o r r y t o i n t e r r u p t
. B e f o r e we turn t o scheduling m att er s, if I coul d j ust no te that th er e i s a n appeal waive r i n thi s par ti cul arpl ea A gr eem ent a t Par agr aph 32. The C ou rt : Ok ay . Are y o u r emi ndingme o fthe m i sta ke Im ade i n the J am es Sur a ca se? G ov er n m en t: In R u le 1 1 a s a m en d ed fairly rec en tly it woul d b e appr o pr i at e to ha ve a c o l l oqu y w i ththe Defen dan t ab o utthe a ppea lwai ve r pa r ag r aph

. T h e C ou rt : A l lr i ght. You kno w , Iag re e with J udg e E a s t e rb r o o k i n th e d i s s e n t i n th a t c a s e . The pr o se cut o r has po i nt ed o ut, M r . Po l ak, tha t bys i g ni ng thi s Pl ea A gr eem ent y ou have i nd i cate d here that yo u ’re w aiv in g y ou r rig h t t o a p p ea l. Polak: I ’m aw are of th at you r hon or. T he Cou rt: A nd you’ve gon e over tha t w ith M r. Sti ll er, yourA tto rney ? Polak: Yes, Ihav e, Y ou r H onor. A t Po l ak’ s s entencing hea ring, the pa rt i es agr eed that the a dvis or y S entencing G u id el i nes r ange w as si x to tw el ve m onths. The Governm ent r eco m m end ed that Pol ak onl y re cei ve thre e yea rs ’ proba ti on i n l i gh t o f h is ve te r ans ta tu s, hi s qui ckpl ea, a nd other m i ti g at i ng f ac to r s. De sp i te thi s r ec o m m en dat i o n, the c o ur t se ntence d Po l ak to a “te chnic al l y” abov e- Gu i del i nes s entence4 N o. 08

- 3381

A l t h o u g h “ t e c h n i c a l l y ” a b o v e th e G u i d e l i n e s r a n g e , P o l a k ’s 1 se n t en ce w ill l ike ly b e sho rter th an tw elv e m on ths b eca u se he w il l be eli gible to r ece ive a red ucti on f or good behav ior, whe r e a s i fh e re c e i ve d a l e s s e r s e nt e nc e h e wou l d n otbe el ig ib le for su ch a r ed u ct io n . S ee18 U .S.C . § 3 6 2 4 (b )(1). ofa yea r and a day. The co urt note d that it d ec li ned to 1 adopt the Gover nm ent’ s r eco m m endati on be cause, am ong othe r th ings: ( 1) pro bati on would notbe an adequate dete rr ent t o Pol ak; ( 2) Pol ak , a vet er an, vi cti m i zed o th er v etera ns who wer e do wn o n the i r l uck; a nd ( 3) Po l akne ede d t o r ec ei ve a l co ho lt r ea tmenti n a c u st od ial en vir on m en t.

II. A N A L Y S IS A . T h e T otali ty of the Circu m stan ces Sh ow s tha t P olak ’s G u ilty P lea W as K n ow in g a n d V olu n tary Po l aka r g ue s tha t the di st r i ctco ur t v i o l at ed Rul e 11 o fthe Feder alRule s o fCri m in al Proce du re wh en i t f ai l ed to asce rt ai n Pol ak’ s underst anding ofth e appell ate waive r befo re a c c e pt i ngh i s p l e a , a nd tha t, a s a r e s ul t, we must re m and fo r re se n te n ci ng. H e a l so ar gues that the di str i ct co u r te r r e d wh e n i tf a i l e d t o s p e c i fi c a l l y me n ti o n, du ring the pl ea col l oqu y, that the a pp el l ate waive r appli ed to the cour t’ s s entencing deci sio n as w el las to th e plea itself

. Rul e 11 , a “ g ui l ty- pl ea s afegua r d, ” det ai l s th e pr o ce dur es tha t a di st r i ctcou rtmustf o l l o w w he n a defe nd ant wis hes t o ple ad gui l ty. U nited Sta tes v . S u ra ,N o. 08

- 3381 5 51 1 F
. 3d 6 54, 6 57( 7th Ci r . 2 00 7)
. I t ex i st s “t o a ss i stthe dist ri ct j ud ge i n m aking the const i tuti onal l y req uir ed d et er m in at ion th a t a d efe n d an t’s gu ilty p lea is tr u ly vo l unt ar y . . . [ an d] t o pr o duce a co m pl et e r ec o r d a t th e tim e t h e p lea is en te re d of th e fa c to rs rele va n t t o th is vol untariness deter m i nati on. ” Id

. at65 7 ( quoti ng M cCar t hy v. U nited Sta tes , 3 9 4 U .S. 459, 465 (1969)). So, “the m ore met i c ul o us l y the Ru l e i s a dh e r e d t o , the mo r e i tt e nd s to di sc o ur ag e, o r a t l ea stt o e nabl e m o r e ex pedi ti o us dispos i ti on o f, the num er ous a nd o ften fri vol ous . . . at tack s on the co nsti tuti onalval id ity ofgui l ty ple as. ” Su ra , 5 1 1 F
. 3 d a t6 5 7

- 5 8 ( qu o t i ng M cCar t hy, 394 U
. S. at 465). R ul e 1 1 (b)( 1)(N ) sp ecifi cally requ ires a sen ten cing cou rt to re vi ew “the te rm s o fany ple a- agr eem ent pr ov isi on wai vingthe r i g htt o a ppea lo r t o c o l l at er al l y a tt ac kthe sente nce” with the d efendant befo reacc epti ng hi s guil ty p lea

. Su ra , 5 11 F. 3d at6 65 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 7) ( ci tingF ed. R. C r i m. P
. 1 1 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( N) )
. S o , h e r e , th e d i s t r i c tc o u r tc o mm i tte d err orwh en it f ai l ed to di scuss the a pp el l ate w ai verpro vi si on b efore accepting Pol ak’ s pl ea. Because Po l akf ai l ed to o bj ec t be f o r e th e en d of the c o l l o quy, o ur ex am in at ion h er e is w h et h er th is erro r w as p lain

. Id

. at65 8. I n o r d e r f o r th e di st r i c tc o u r t ’ s e r r o r t o b e p l a i n, we m us t fi nd tha t i t: ( 1) affec te d Po l ak ’ s su bs ta nt i alr i g ht s; a nd (2) s er iou s l y a ffec te d th e fa irn es s, in te gr ity , or p u b lic re p u ta tio n of th e jud i c ial p ro c ee d in gs . U ni t e d S t at e s v. M cM ath , 559 F. 3d 657, 667 ( 7th Ci r. 20 09) ( ci ti ng Johns on v. U ni t e d S t a tes , 520 U
. S. 461, 466-67 (1997 ))
. I t is Polak’s burden to dem onst ra te th at the dis tr i ct c ourt ’ s f ai l ure to ab id e b y R u le 1 1 a ffec te d h is s u b st an tia l righ ts
. U nited6 N o. 08

- 3381 Sta te s v. O l ano , 5 0 7U. S
. 7 2 5 , 7 3 4

- 3 5 ( 1 9 9 3 )
. We mus tl oo k to th e t o t a l i t y o fth e c i r c u ms t a n c e s s u r r o u n d i n gt he ne g o t i a t i o n o fthe pl e a a g r e e men ta nd the c o ur t ’ s a c c e ptan ce of the p lea to dete rm ine w he th er th e d istri ct cou rt’s f ailure to pro perl y inquir e about the a pp el l ate waive r d u rin g t h e p lea co l l o q u y c on st itu te s p lain err or . Su ra , 511 F. 3d at 661. In doi ng so , the m osti m port ant quest i on to as k is w h et h e r t h e p lea w as tru ly v olu n ta ry . Id . In m aking this ev al uati on, we m ay exam i ne ev i dence outsi de the Rule 11 col l oquy. U nite d S t at e s v. Vonn , 53 5 U
. S. 55 , 74

- 75 ( 2002 )
. I t i s a d efe nd ant’ s bur den to show that hi s pl ea w as not vol untary
. Su ra , 51 1 F
. 3d at6 61
. To do s o , he must“ sh o w a r ea so nabl e pr o babi l i tythat, b ut f orthe er ro r, he woul d not have en te red the pl ea .” U nited Sta tes v. D o m ing uez B enitez , 542 U
. S. 74, 76 (200 4). I f“ th e sa fegua r d r equi r ed byRul e 11 i s m i ss i ng, the r ec o r d m us t reveal a n a dequa te s ubs ti tu te f o r i t, a nd the d efend an t m us t show w hy the om issi on m ad e a differ ence to hi m . ” Su ra , 51 1 F
. 3d at 667. I n Sur a , al th o ug h the di st r i ctc o ur t as k ed whethe r the defe nd ant r ead hi s pl ea agree m ent a nd advi sed hi m that he w as reli nq uish ing certai n r ig ht s, it f ail ed to i nq uire about the defen d an t’s knowledge o fan a pp el l ate waive r d u rin g th e ple a c o l l oq u y. Id. at65 6-5 7. W e fo u n d th at, in the absence o fa properand com ple te Rule 11 col l oquy, the defendant’s pl ea w as not knowing and vol untary
. Id

. a t6 6 2

- 6 3
. In d e t e r mi n i n gth i s , we n o t e d th a t : ( 1 ) the ple a co l l oquy not o n ly f ai l ed to m enti on the appel l ate wai ve r, b utal so f ai l ed t o as ce r ta i n w he th erthe de fen dan t wento ve r the a g r ee m en t wi thhi s at tor ne y; ( 2) the de fen dant’s ag e, m en tal condi ti on, and confused re sponsesN o. 08

- 3381 7 to th e c ou rtte n d ed to i n d i c a t e t h at h e h ad n otfu lly und er sto od the ple a a gr eem ent; and ( 3) the re cor d fai l ed t o s ho w a nysubst i t ut e tha tc o ul d r e pl a c e the s a fe g ua r ds of R u le 1 1. Id

. at66 2. Unl i k e i n Su ra , the re c or d i n thi s ca se re veal s that Polak’s p lea w as volun tary an d th a t s ub stitut es for a properRule 11 co l l oquy were i n pla ce, wh i c h i nd i cate d th at Pol ak w as aw ar e of the ple a’ s appell ate w ai ver. In Su ra , we dea l t wi th anuns o phi st i ca te d de fen dan t an d the re cor d did not show t h at he had r ead and und er sto od th e ap p ell ate w aiver. H ere, w e d eal w it h a m ore educated defen d an t and the r eco rd r eve al s, i n sev er al w ays , thathe ha d adequate know l edge of the appel l ate w ai ver . A m ong o therthi ngs: ( 1) the cour t inquir ed about w hether P ola k had g one ove r the a gr eem ent with hi s a t t o r ne y, a nd P o l a kr e s po nd e d tha th e h a d; ( 2) Po l aks i g ne d the pl ea a g r ee m en t be l o w a s ta te m en t that sta ted t h at h e re vi ew ed al las pects ofthe ple a with hi s atto rney ; ( 3) the cour t inquir ed abo ut hi s know l edge ofthe ap pel l ate waive r, albei t a fterhe e nter ed the ple a; (4) P ola k h ad a h igh sc h oo l ed u c at ion an d a c ar ee r in th e m i l i ta r y ; a nd ( 5) the Go ve r nm entha d o ve r whel m i ng evi dence a ga inst Pol ak, m aking the acc eptance ofa ple a agr eem ent ( w i th appel l ate waive r) hi ghl y r eas onabl e. Perhaps m ostper suasi ve i s the f act that Pol ak ad m its that he st i ll w ants to ple ad gui l ty ( he j ust wants to be r e s e nt e nc e d)

— ther ef or e, any ar gum ent that “ but f or the e rr or, he woul d not hav e e nter ed the ple a” m ust b e v iew ed w ith sk ep tic i sm . Seeid

. at65 8. Based o n th e s e f a c t o r s , w e fi n d th a tth e t o t a l i t y o fth e c i r c u ms t a n c e s s h o ws th a tP o l a k ’ s p l ea w as v o l u n t a r y, a n d we8 N o. 08

- 3381 ther ef or e uphol d his appel l ate w ai ver . Fur ther, bec ause the pl ai n text ofthe w ai veri nd i cate s that the waiv er appli ed to both h is ple a a nd hi s s entence , and beca use w e held that there w as ad eq ua te ind ici a in th e record t h a t h e had know ledge of th e w aiver, w e rej ect P olak’s ar gum ent that the di str i ct c ourtco m m i tte d plain er ro r w hen i t di d not s peci fi cal l y m entio n thatthe appell ate w ai verappli ed to co l l ate ra lat tack s o n hi s s entence
. Because the appel l ate waive r i n Pol ak ’ s pl ea agr eem ent i s v al i d, w e n eed notaddress Pol ak’ s cl ai m that his sen ten ce is un reason able. W e the refore affi rm h is sente nce. Fin ally , w e n ot e t h at alt h ou gh h ar m les s o n th is r ec o r d, the se o m i ss i o ns a r e f arfr o m i nc o ns eque nt i ala nd en tir ely p re ve n ta b le. T o p re ve n t t h es e o c c u rre n c es in th e fu tu re , d i s t ric t c ou rtj u d ge s w ou ld be w elladvi sed to f ol l ow the m odelf orco nd ucting a pl ea col l oquy o utl i ned i n the Benchbo ok for U ni ted St at es D ist ric t C ou rtJu d ge s. See § 2. 01 (5th ed

. 2 0 0 7); a l s o a v a i l ab l e a th t t p: // c wn. f j c . dc n/pu b l i c /pd f

. ns f/ l o o k up / B en c hb k5 .p d f/$ file/B en c hb k5 .p d f. W e a lso n ot e t h at it is the r esponsibi l i ty not onl y o fthe dist ri ct c ou rt , but al so ofthe pr o s e c ut o r a nd de fe ns e c o un s e l t o e ns ur e that a p lea m eets th e re q uirem en ts of Ru le 11. District cou rt j udg es a r e j ug g l i nghun dr eds o fc as es , b oth ci vi la nd c rim in a l . M ist ak es h ap p en , bu t if th e c ou rtina d ve rt en tly m i ss es a s te p i n the pl ea c o l l o quy, c o uns els ho ul d s pea kup an d b r i ngthe o m i ss i o n t o the c o ur t’ s at tentio n b efo r e th e pl ea i s ac ce pte d. Bus y tr i al j udg es wi l l wel com e the opportunity to a void e rr or . I fthe cour t a nd bo th co unselN o. 08

- 3381 9 uti l i ze a checkl i st w hi ch spel l s out the Ru le 1 1 requi re m ents, thi s type o fappealco uld be avo i ded i n the future.

I I I . C ONC L US I ON For the for ego i ng r eas ons, Pol ak’ s s entence i s A FFI RMED .

7- 20- 09