FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC U IT FEB RUARY 26, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 07- 11990 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 6 - 2 0 4 9 2 - CR- SH U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s D A V I D D I O N J O N E S , J R ., D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( F e b r u ar y 26, 2008) B efo re C A RN E S , P R Y O R an d K R A V IT C H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: D a v id D io n J o n e s ap p e a ls h is c o n v ic tio n a n d s e n te n c e f o rp o s s e s s io n w ith in te n t to d is tr ib u te c r a c kc o c a in e , in v io la tio n o f 2 1 U .S .C . § 8 4 1 .2

J o n e s a g r e e d to p le a d g u ilty to as in g le c o u n t o f p o s s e s s io n w ith in te n t to di stri bu t e c ra ck cocai ne, i n v i ol at i on of 21 U . S . C . § 8 41 . A tthe change-of-pl ea hear i ng , Jones i nd i ca t ed thathe had a tw el fth g ra de educat i on , thathe w as sa t i sf i ed w i th cou nsel , and thathe had read and si gn ed the pl eaagre em ent . T he courtas ked defe nse c ou nsel , “ have you adv i se d you r c l i entof al l the ri gh t s he has st andi ng as som eone acc used of a c om m i ss i on of a c ri m e i n thi s our sy st em of cr i m i nal j us t i c e ? ” C ouns e l i ndi c a t e d tha the ha d. A f t e rc onf i rm i ng tha tno one ha d m a de a ny pr om i s e s t o J one s i n e xc ha nge f orthe pl e a , a nd e xpl a i ni ng the s e nt e nc i ng p r o c e d u r e , th e c o u rt s ta te d th a t it f o u n d th e p le ato b e k n o w in g a n d v o lu n ta ry . A l though the c ourti nf

orm e d J one s tha the ha d the r i ghtt o pl e a d notgui l ty a nd proceed t o tri al , the courtm ade no o ther i nq ui ryun der F ed. R . C ri m . P . (“ R ul e” ) 1 1 . T h e e n tir e c o llo q u y la s te d f if te e n m in u te s . B a s e d on the c a l c ul a t e d gui de l i ne s r a nge a nd the s e nt e nc i ng f a c t or s i n 18 U . S . C . § 3 55 3(a) , the courtse nt ence d Jon es t o 1 51 m on ths’ i m pri sonm ent . Jones now appe a l s , a r gui ng tha tthe c our tpl a i nl ye rr e d by f a i l i ng t o a dhe r e t o the m a nda t e s of

R ul e 11 t o e ns ur e he unde r s t ood the c ons e que nc e s of hi s pl e aa nd a dvi s e hi m of

the r i ght s he w oul d be w a i vi ng by pl e a di ng gui l ty . H e not e s tha tone of the r i ght s the c ourts houl d ha ve i nf orm e d hi m of

w a s the r i ghtt o c onf

r ont w i tne s s e s , a nd tha tbe c aus e the c ha r ge s a ga i ns thi m w e r e ba s e d on hi s i nt e r a c t i on3

w ith ac o n f

id e n tia l in f

o rm a n t, th e r ig h t to c r o s s - e x a m in e h is a c c u s e rw a s c ru c ia l to h is d e c is io n to e n te rap le a . Wh e n ad e f

e n d a n tr a i s e s aR u l e 1 1 o b j e c t i o n f o rth e f i r s tt i m e o n ap p e a l , we r e vi e w tha tobj e c t i on f

orpl a i n e rr or . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. V onn, 535 U . S . 55, 59, 122 S . C t . 1043, 1046, 152 L . E d. 2d 90 ( 2002) ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. M onr oe , 353 F . 3d 1346, 1 3 4 9 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) . U n d e rp la in e rr o rr e v ie w , th e d e f e n d a n t h a s th e b u r d e n to s h o w th a t th e r e is a n : ( 1 ) e rr o r ; ( 2 ) th a t is p la in ; ( 3 ) th a t a f f e c ts s u b s ta n tia l r ig h ts . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. O l a no, 507 U . S . 725, 732, 113 S . C t . 1770, 1776, 123 L . E d. 2d 508 ( 1 9 9 3 ) . I f

th e s e th r e e e le m e n ts a r e m e t, th e c o u r t m a y e x e r c is e its d is c r e tio n to c orr e c tthe e rr ori f

i t“ s e r i ous l y a f

f e c t [ s ] the f

a i rne s s , i nt e gr i ty , orpubl i c r e put a t i on of j ud i ci al proceedi ng s. ” I d. (c i t at i on om i tt ed). “ [A ] defe nd antw ho se eks r ever sa l of hi s c on vi ct i on af

t era gui l ty pl ea , on the grou nd thatthe di stri ctcourtcom m i tt ed pl a i n e rr orunde rR ul e 11, m us ts how ar e a s onabl e pr obabi l i ty tha t , butf orthe error, he w ou l d n othave ent er ed the pl ea . ” U ni t ed S t at es v. D om i ng uez- B eni t ez , 5 4 2 U . S. 7 4 , 8 3 , 1 2 4 S. Ct . 2 3 3 3 , 2 3 4 0 , 1 5 9 L. Ed . 2 d 1 5 7 ( 2 0 0 4 ) . A s th e Su p r e me C ou rthas e xp l ai ned, ho w ever , “ w hen the re cord of a cr i m i nal conv i ct i on ob t ai ned by gu i l ty pl eacont ai ns no evi dence thata def endantkn ew of the ri gh t s he w as put a t i ve l y w a i vi ng, the c onvi c t i on m us tbe r e ve r s e d. W e do nots ugge s ttha ts uc h a c onvi c t i on c oul d be s a ve d e ve n by ove rw he l m i ng e vi de nc e tha tthe de f e nda nt4

w o u l d h a v e p l e a d e d g u i l ty r e g a r d l e s s . ” I d . ( c i t i n g Bo y k i n v . A l ab a ma , 3 9 5 U . S. 2 3 8 , 2 4 3 , 8 9 S .C t. 1 7 0 9 , 2 3 L .E d .2 d 2 7 4 ( 1 9 6 9 ) ) . In eval uat i ng w hether adefe nd anthas s ho w n thathi s s ub st ant i al ri gh t s w er e a f f e c te d o rp r e

ju d ic e d , th is c o u rt h a s e x a m in e d th e th r e e “c o r e o b je c tiv e s ” o f

R u le 11: “ ( 1) e ns ur i ng tha tthe gui l ty pl e ai s f r e e of c oe r c i on; ( 2) e ns ur i ng tha tthe defe nd antun ders t ands the nature of the charges agai nsthi m ; and (3) ensuri ng that the de f e nda nti s a w a r e of

the di r e c tc ons e que nc e s of the gui l ty pl e a . ” M onr oe , 353 F .3 d a t 1 3 5 4 ( in te rn a l c ita tio n s o m itte d ) . T h e r e is n o m e c h a n ic a l ru le to ap p ly in de t e rm i ni ng w he the rthe di s tr i c tc our ta de qua t e l y i nf orm e d the de f

e nda ntof the nature of the charges agai nsthi m , and thi s c ou rtcond uct s aca se -s peci fi c i nq ui ry tha tde pe nds on the c om pl e xi ty of the c ha r ge s a nd “ the de f e nda nt ’ s s ophi s t i c a t i on and i nt el l i gence. ” U ni t ed S t at es v. C am ac ho , 23 3 F . 3d 13 08 , 13 14 (11th C i r. 2 0 0 0 ) ( c ita tio n s o m itte d ) . T h is c o u r t h a s u p h e ld “p le ac o llo q u ie s th a t f a il to a ddr e s s a n i t e m e xpr e s s l y r e qui r e d by R ul e 11 s o l ong a s the ove r a l l pl e ac ol l oquy a de qua t e l y a ddr e s s e s the s e thr e e c or e c onc e rns . ” M onr oe , 353 F . 3d a t1354. R ul e 11 r e qui r e s the c ourtt o i nf orm the de f

e nda ntof

, a nd de t e rm i ne tha tthe de f e nda ntunde r s t a nds , tha the ha s the r i ghtt o aj ury tr i a l ; the r i ghtt o be r e pr e s e nt e d by c ouns e l ; the r i ghta ttr i a l t o pr e s e nt , c onf r onta nd c r os s - e xa m i ne w itn e s s e s ; a n d th e r ig h t to b e p r o te c te d f r o m c o m p e lle d s e lf

- in c r im in a tio n , a n d to5

t e s t i f y a nd pr e s e nte vi de nc e . T he c our ta l s o m us te xpl a i n tha the w i l l be w a i vi ng these tri al ri gh t s i f the courtac ce pt s the pl ea . F i nal l y, the courtm ustconfi rm that th e d e f e n d a n tu n d e r s t a n d s th e n a tu r e o f th e c h a r g e s a g a i n s th i m. Fe d . R. Cr i m. P. 1 1 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( C ) - ( G ) . H er e, the re cord ref

l ec t s thatthe courtfa i l ed t o i nq ui re i nt o R ul e 11' s c ore c onc e rns ; t o de t e rm i ne i f J one s unde r s t ood the r i ght s he w oul d be w a i vi ng by p le a d e d g u ilty , th e c o u rt s im p ly a s k e d c o u n s e l o f c o u n s e l h a d d is c u s s e d th e r ig h ts w ith J o n e s . A t n o tim e d id th e c o u r t e x p la in w h a t r ig h ts J o n e s w o u ld b e w a iv in g . A nd the re cord do es no ti nd i ca t e w hi ch of these ri gh t s J on es and h i s a tt orney di s c us s e d. M or e ove r , on the r e c or d be f or e thi s c our t , i ti s di f

f i c ul tt o de t e rm i ne w h e th e rth e c o u rt in q u ir e d in to w h e th e rJ o n e s u n d e r s to o d th e c h a r g e s a g a in s t h im . N o th in g in d ic a te s th a t th e c o u rt d is c u s s e d th e c h a r g e s a g a in s t J o n e s o th e rth a n to m e n tio n th a t h e w a s p le a d e d g u ilty to p o s s e s s io n w ith in te n t to d is tr ib u te c r a c k . N ot abl y , J one s ha d m a ny othe ra rr e s t s a nd c onvi c t i ons f ordrug of

f e ns e s , a nd § 841 i s nota“ c om pl i c a t e d” of f e ns e . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. T e l e m a que , 244 F . 3d 1247, 1249 ( 11th C i r . 2001) . N e ve rthe l e s s , the r e c or d i s de voi d of e vi de nc e tha tthe c o u r t m e t th e c o r e c o n c e rn s o f R u le 1 1 . M o r e o v e r , in h is ap p e lla te b r ie f , J o n e s p r o f

f e r s th a t th e r e is ar e a s o n ab le p r o b ab ility th a t h e w o u ld n o t h a v e p le a d e d g u ilty h a d h e u n d e r s to o d th a t h e c o u ld6

cr oss- exam i ne w i tness es . T hu s, Jones has m ethi s burden t o sho w pl ai n err or. D om i ngue z - B e ni t e z , 542 U . S . a t84 n. 10. F u r th e rm o r e , a s th e g o v e rn m e n t c o n c e d e s , th e r e c o r d is in a d e q u a te to d e t e rm i n e i f

J o n e s ’ s p l e ac o l l o q u y wa s s u f f i c i e n tu n d e rR u l e 1 1 . T h e r e f o r e , we v acat e th e p l ea an d sen t en ce an d rem an d . A cco rd i n g l y, w e d o n o tad d ress Jo n es’ s s e n te n c in g is s u e . VA C AT E D an d R E MAND E D.