## 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

- 3882 U NIT ED S TATE S OF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v . R O BERTE . H OKE, D e f e ndan t

-Appe l l ant
.
A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the S outhernDi stricto f Illino is. No . 4:06- cr-40058-JP G- 1

—J. Phil Gilbert, Judge
.
A RGUED A PRIL 7, 2009

— D ECI DE D J UNE 25, 2009

Befo re P OSNER, R IPPLE a nd W OO D , C ircu it Judges . R IPPLE, Cir cu i tJudg e . Rob ert Hoke w as i nd i cted f or the r e c e i pta nd p o s s e s s i o n o fc hi l d p o r no g r a ph y i n v i o l ation of 18 U
. S. C
. §§ 2252A (a)( 2)(A ) an d 2252A (a)( 5)(B). A fterthe Gover nm ent r est ed its c ase, M r. H oke pl eaded gu ilty t o b ot h co u n ts . H e la te r m ov ed to w ith d ra w h is g ui l ty pl ea, b utthe di st r i ctc o ur t den i ed hi s m o ti o n. The co ur t se nt en ce d M r . H oke to 1 21 months ’ i m pr i so nm en t and fi ve yea rs ’ superv i sed r el eas e. I n thi s a pp eal, M r. H oke2 N o. 08

- 3882 conte nd s that the co urt abu sed i ts disc re ti on bynot al l owing hi m to w ith draw hi s guil ty ple a. H e a l so cl ai m s that th e d i str i ct c ourtdeni ed hi m hi s r i ght o f al l ocuti on i n vi ol ati on o fFe deralRule o fCri m i nal Pro

c ed u re 32 (i)(4)(A ). For t h e re as on s s et fort h in t h is opi ni on, we affi rm the j ud gm ent o fthe dist ri ct c ourt
.
A . M ot i on t o W i t hd r aw G uil ty Pl ea 1. OnJ a nuary 8, 2 0 0 8 , Mr
. Ho k e wa s c ha r g e d wi th r e c e i pt ofchi l d porn og ra p h y a n d p os se ss ion of ch ild p or n ography. A j ur y t r i a l c o mm e nc e d o n J un e 1 6 , 2 0 0 8 , a nd the Go ver nm ent r est ed i ts case the f ol l owing day. A fterM r. H oke hear d all o f t h e e vi dence ag ai nst hi m , he pl eaded gui l ty to b oth counts. Bef or e a ccepti ng the pl ea, the dist ri ct cour t a dvis ed and questi oned M r. H oke as r equi re d by Rule 11(b) ( 1) o fthe Feder al R ule s o fCri m i nal Pro cedure. Th e d ist ric t co urt pla ced M r. H oke under o ath a nd quest i o n e d h i m t o e n s u r e th a t h e u n d e r s t o o d E n g l i s h a nd th athe was s at i sfi ed wi thhi s r epr es en ta ti o n. The c o urt w ent th ro ugh eac h count ofthe i nd i ctm ent a nd , al though the G ove rnm ent a l re ady had pres ented i ts evi dence du ring i ts case - i n-c hi ef, r equi re d th e p ro secuto r to sta te, w i th r espectto ea ch co unt, the e vi dence upon w hi ch th e G ov er n m en t relied

. T h e cou rt als o as su r e d it se lf that M r. H oke understo od the l engt h o fthe sente nce he co uld r ecei ve a n d the condi ti ons gov er ni ng hi s s ubse que ntr el eas e. The c o ur t al so a dvi se d hi m o fthe ri ghts that he co uld e xerci se i fhe e l ected t o p ro ceed with th e t ria l. W i t h r eg ar d to se n te n c in g, th e c ou rtto ldN o. 08

- 3882 3

M r. H oke di d no t e xplai n the nature ofthi s “tec hnical de- 1 f en s e” athi s he ar i ng. M r. H oke thatthe U ni ted State s S entenci ng Guidel i nes ar e a dvis or y a nd thati t would co nsi der the Guid elines, an y s ta tu to r y mandat ory m in i m um a nd the f ac to r s en um er at ed unde r 1 8 U. S
. C. § 3 55 3(a)
. Thr o ug ho utthe pr o ce ss , the c o ur t en su r ed th atM r . Hok e unde r st o od the advi ce g i ven to hi m . A fterve ri fyi ng tha t no thr eat s o r pr om i se s ha d b ee n made t o M r . Hok e an d de te r m i ni ng th at hi s pl ea was a “ f r ee a nd v o l unt ar y a ct, ” th e court accepte d his gui l ty ple a. R. 94 at 8. O n A ug us t 18, M r. H oke w rote a l etter to the cou rt see k i ng to wi th dr aw hi s pl ea o f g ui l ty
. Two day s later, M r. H ok e’s at to rn ey m ov ed to w ith d ra w as co u n se l; the dist ri ct cour t gr anted the m oti on and a p poi nted ne w coun sel

. On Oct o be r 1 , M r . Hok e m o ve d t o wi th

draw hi s guil ty ple a under F edera l Rule o fCrim in al Proc ed ure 11(d)(2)( B ). A t a subse quent hear i ng, M r. H oke m ai ntai ned that hi s pl ea w as n ot m ade kno w i ngl y b ecause he was co nfus ed ab o utthe na tu r e o fthe pr o ce eding s an d because he w as i nnocent ofthe charg es und era “te chnic al d efe n se. ” M r. H oke cl ai m ed that hi s pl ea w as coe rce d

1 b y h is for m er at to rn ey a n d th at th e a tt or n ey h ad to ld hi m that hi s co m pu terexper t co uld notte sti fy. M r. H oke al so sai d that he had l oo ked to hi s a tto rneyf ordi re cti on o n h o w to a ns wermos t o fthe c o ur t’ s ques ti o ns a t th e p lea h ear i ng. By co ntra st, the f or m erat torney t est i fi ed th athe di d noti ns tructM r . Hok e ho w to a ns werthe que st i o ns a nd tha t, ha d the y pr o ce ed ed w i ththe t r i al, he4 N o. 08

- 3882

w oul d have ca l l ed M r. H ok e’ s co m pu ter e xpert to tes ti fy. T h e Gove rnm ent quest i oned M r. H oke, wh o adm i tte d to havi ng no m ental d efe c ts and to bei ng cl ear - m i nd ed on the day that he pl eaded gui l ty. The cour t found that M r. H oke h ad not been prom pted by hi s a tt or n ey w hen he a nsw er ed i ts questi ons and al so f ound that, d uri ng the hear i ng, M r. H oke had und er sto od the c onse quences o fhi s a cti ons w hen he pl eaded gui l ty. The cour t there f or e deni ed hi s m oti on t o w i thdraw hi s pl ea.

2. W e re view the cour t’ s deni alo fM r. H oke ’ s m oti on t o w ith d ra w h i s g u i l ty p lea for a n ab u se of d isc re tio n . See U nite d Sta te s v. B ow li n , 534 F.3d 654 , 659 (7th C ir. 2008). M r. H ok e s u b m its th at th e c ou r t e r re d in d en yin g h is mot i o n t o wi th d r a w h i s g u i l t y p l e a b e c a u s e h e h a d a val i d techni caldefense, wh i ch hi s p rio r att or ney ha d f ai l ed to r ai se. H e fur therm ai ntai ns thathe was “s tr ess ed an d c o nfus ed ab o utthe v ar i ou s p r o ce eding s l ea di ngup to the pl ea ofgui l ty. ” Ap pel l ant’ s Br. 10
. T h e d ist ric t c ou rtd id n otab u se its d isc r et ion in denyi ng M r. H oke ’ s m oti on t o w i thdraw his p lea. M r. H oke did n ot show “a f ai r and j ust r eas on f orr equesti ng the withdrawal

. ” U nited St at e s v. Bryant, 55 7 F
. 3d 48 9, 4 95 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 9) ( quo tingF ed. R. C ri m . P. 11( d)( 2) ( B))
. H e cl ai m s that he i s l ega l l y innocent because ofa “te chnic aldefense. ” Ho w eve r, “cl ai m s o fi nnocence al one do not m andate perm i ssi on t o w i thdraw a ple a, ” but, ra t h er , m u st be su b st an tia te d by ev id en c e. U nited Sta tesN o. 08

- 3882 5

v. G roll, 99 2 F
. 2d 755, 75 8 ( 7th Ci r. 19 93)
. Fur ther m or e, M r . Ho k e ha s no t s ho wn tha t, a t the t i me o f hi s pl ea, he was unaw ar e o fthe te c h n ical defe nse which he now in vo ke s. Se eBryant, 5 57F
. 3d at4 95 ( hold in gtha t th e di st r i ct co ur t’ s den i al o f th e defen dan t’ s m o ti o n to w i th

draw h i s p l e a wa s n o ta n a b us e o fdi s c r e t i o n b e cause the defendant d id n ot prese nt newlydi sco ver ed ev i den ce r el at i ngt o hi s f ac tu alg ui l t o r i nnocenc e, a nd he di d no t di sc o ve r a new l eg alde fen se a fte r he ple ad ed gui l ty)
. Consequentl y, M r. H oke has not est abl i shed that a f ai r and j ust r eas on f orwithdrawal exi sts
. M r. H oke cl ai m s tha t h e w as confused abo ut the proc e e di ng s l e a ding up t o h i s p l e a o fg ui l t y . We ha v e h e l d, ho wev er, tha t “[ t] he o nl y r at i o na l mann er in w hi cha j udg e m ayde te r m i ne whethe r a pl ea i s k no wi ng l y a nd vol untari l y m ade, i s t o obs er ve the defendant’s dem eanor an d r e s p o n s e s t o th e c o u r t ’ s q u e s t i o n s a n d t o r e l y o n t he defe nd ant’ s s w or n answers. ” U ni t e d S t at e s v. Ell i s on , 83 5 F
. 2d 68 7, 6 93 ( 7th Ci r . 1 987). T he di st r i ctc o ur t ha d the o ppo r tu ni tyt o que st i o n a nd o bs er ve M r . Hok e dur i ng hi s m o ti o n t o wi th dr aw pl ea he ar i ng ; i t di d no t fi nd th at M r. H oke w as con fused or un aw ar e o f t h e nat ure o fhi s ac ti o ns a t th att i m e. W e th er efo r e be l i eve thatthe cou rt did not ab us e its discretion i n de ny ing M r. H oke’s m oti on t o w i thdraw his gui l ty ple a.

B. Rig ht o fA l l ocut i on 1. Mr
. H o k e ’ s s e n t e n c i n gh e a r i n gw a s h e l d o n N o v e mber 7, 2008
. Prior to M r. H oke’s all ocu tion, th e cou rt6 N o. 08

- 3882

a ddr e s s e d a n o bj e c t i o n r a i s e d b y the Go v e r nme ntr e g a r di ng th e pr es en te nc e i nv es ti g at i o n r epo r t ( “P S R ”). The G ov ernm ent m ai ntai ned that the PS R shoul d have advi sed a tw o- l ev elenhancem ent forobstr ucti on o f j usti ce b ecause , i t all ege d, M r. H oke had m ade f al se st at ement s dur i ngthe he ar i ngf or hi s m o ti o n t o wi th

draw hi s guil ty ple a. The co urt sta ted that it w as not going to ap p l y the o bstr ucti on o fj usti ce e nhancem ent, b utt o l d the Go v e r nme nttha t“ ev e n tho ugh i t ’ s n o ta ppl y i ngthe e nha nc emen t, [i t] wi l l b e ta k i ngi nt o a cc o unt hi s t est i m ony w hen i t i ssues i ts sente n c e, w hi ch w i l l be w i thi n the advi sor y guidel i ne r ange. . . . ” R. 123 at 5. The cour t th en expl ai ned i ts gui del i nes- ra nge findings and aske d w hetherei thersi de had any obj ect i o ns . M r . Ho k e ’ s a t t o r ne y r e pl i e d tha t he woul d be obj ecting to the Gu i del i nes a s a w hol e, and he not ed that th e c o ur ti s n o tb o un d b y the Gu i de l i ne s . T he c o ur tacknowle dged that the Gui del i nes ar e a dvis or y a nd then not ed that i t w ou ld con side r “th e [section] 3553(a) factors as w ell as the a dvis or y guidel i nes in i ssui ng i ts deci si on on th e ap p ro pri ate se ntence. ” Id. at7. M r. H oke then pres en ted m i ti gat i ng st ate m ents f ro m se ver alwitnesse s, a nd h i s a t t o r ne y a r g ue d tha th e s ho ul d r e c e i ve the m andator y m i ni m um se ntence ofsi xty m onths. Aft erthe a tt o r ne y s f o r b o th s i des ha d s po k en, the cou r t d ir e cted M r. H oke to stan d , and asked : “I s the re an yth ing you w ish to say o r o ffer i n m iti gation be fore thi s Courti m poses se ntence?” Id. at26. M r. H oke r epl i ed th athe ha d he al thpr o bl ems. He a dm i tt ed to l o o k i ng at ad u lt p or n og ra p h y, bu t d en ied ev e r look in g a t c h ildN o. 08

- 3882 7 pornog ra phy. The co urt th en sentenced M r. H oke to 12 1 m onths’ i m pri sonm ent forCou n t 1 and 120 m onths’ im p ris on m en t fo r Count 2, to r un concurr entl y, f ol l owed byfi ve yea rs o fsuperv i sed r el eas e.

2. B ec a u s e M r. H ok e ra ise d n o ob j ec tio n reg ar d in g h is ri gh t of all ocuti on a t the di str i ct c ourtl eve l, we re vi ew on ly for p l a i n err or . Se eU ni t e d S t at e s v. Lu epke, 49 5 F
. 3d 44 3, 4 4 6 (7 th C ir. 20 07 ); Fed . R. C rim . P. 52 (b ). “P lain er ro r re vi ew r equi re s us to deter m in e: (1) thater ro r o cc ur r ed; ( 2) tha t th e er r o r was pl ain; an d ( 3) tha t th e er ro r affecte d the defendant’s subst anti alr i ghts

. ”L u epke, 495 F. 3d at 448. “I f t h ese cr i ter i a a re m et, we m ay r ev er se , i n an ex er ci se o f di sc r et i o n, i f w e d et er m i ne that the e rr or‘ ser i ousl y a ffects the f ai rnes s, int egr i ty, o r pu bl i c r epu ta ti on o fj ud i ci alpro ceedi ngs. ’ ” Id. ( quo ting U ni t e d S t at e s v. Si m ps on , 479 F.3d 492 , 496 (7th C ir. 2007)). M r. H ok e subm i ts that the di str i ct c ourtf or ecl ose d any pos sibi l i ty ofa bel ow-gui del i nes s entence , pri orto hi s o pp or tuni ty to add re ss the c ourt, w h en it sta ted that hi s se nt en ce woul d b e “wi th in t he a dvi so r y g ui del i ne ra nge. ” R. 123 at 5. M r. H oke ther ef or e co ntends that th e co ur t vi o l at ed his r i g hto fa l l o cut i o n a nd mai nt ains that the v i ol ati on was notcure d w hen the cour t l ate r allo w ed h im t o p re se n t w itn es se s a n d to p er so n ally ad d re ss th e c ou rt
. Se eLu epke, 4 95 F
. 3d at4 52 ; F ed. R. C rim
. P. 32(i) (4). Feder alRule o fCri m i nal P rocedure 32( i ) ( 4) ( A ) , wh i ch co di fi e s the c o mm o n l a w r i g hto fa l l o c ut i o n, s t ate s8 N o. 08

- 3882 that, pri orto i m posi ng a sente nce, the cour t m ust “a d d r e s s th e d e fe n d a n t p e r s o n a l l y i n o r d e r t o p e r mi t th e defe nd ant t o s p eak orpre sent any info rm ati on t o m i ti g at e th e se nt en ce . ” I n G reen v. U n ited S ta tes , 36 5 U. S
. 3 0 1 , 3 0 4 ( 1 9 6 1 ) ( p l u r a l i t y o p i n i o n ) , th e S u p r e me Cou r t i nt er pr et ed ane ar l i erv er si on ofthi s r ul e an d hel d that a defendant m ust be aff or ded the op p or tu n i ty to perso nal ly add re ss the c ourt
. The Courtst ate d that d i s t r i c tc o u r t s s h o u l d “ u n a mb i g u o u s l y a ddr e s s th e msel ves to the defendant” and “sho uld l eave n o ro om for d ou bt that the defendant has been i ssued a perso nal i nvi tat i on t o speak pri orto se ntenci ng. ” Id. at30 5. W e m us t consi derthe di st r i ctc o ur t’ s st at ement re ga rd in g s en te n c in g M r. H ok e u n d er th e G u id elin es in th e co nt ex t i n whi chi t was made. D uring the s en te nc i nghe ar i ng, the Go ve r nm en t o bj ecte d to the PS R, m ai ntai ni ng that M r. H oke shoul d hav e re cei ved an obs tr ucti on o fj usti ce e nhancem ent form aking f al se sta tem en ts. The co urt decl i ned to apply the e nhancem ent an d expl ai ned that i t would “b e t aking i nto acco unt hi s t est i m ony w hen i t i ssues it s s entence , wh i ch w i l l be w i thi n the advi sor y guide lin e range . . . . ” R. 123 at 5. W he n read i n con tex t, it i s evide nt th at th e d istri ct cou rt w as m er el y com m unica ti ng that i t w oul d use th e G u i del i ne s as i ts b as el i ne , a s o ppo se d to the e l ev at ed se nt en cing ran ge th at th e Go vern m en t sou gh t. A fter the cou rt sta ted i ts i ntent, M r. H ok e’ s a tto rneyq u i ckl y no ted that he wo u ld b e chal l engi ng the appli cabi l i ty ofthe Gu i del i n e s a n d s t a t e d th a tth e c o u r tw a s n o tb o u n d b y th e m.N o. 08

- 3882 9

Thi s c as e i s no tc ont ro l l ed by U ni t ed Sta t es v. Luepke, 495 F. 3d 2 44 3 ( 7th Ci r. 20 07 )
. I n Luepke, the di s t r i c tc ourt anno un c e d a speci fic sentenc e and com m it ted the def endan t t o the Bu reau o f P ri so n s p ri o r t o al lo cu tio n . Id
. at44 5. Af t era nno unc i ng the se ntence i n “se em ingly c onclus ive t erm s, ” the c o urt s tat ed “[ b]efore i mpo s i ng a n y s e n t e n c e i n th i s mat t e r I wi l l c a l l upon the defen dantf or thos e m at t ers w hich he woul d l i ke t o br i ng to the Cou rt ’ s att enti on. ” Id
. (citation om itted , em p ha sis i n or i gi nal ) . W e he ld thatthe c our tha d co m m i t t ed pl ai n e rr or by i m posing a s ente nce bef ore aff ording the def en d a n t an opp or t un i t y t o s pe a k a nd o bs e r ve d tha t“ the de f e nd a nthad l i t t l e i n c e n t i v e t o s h a r e h i s th o u g h t s o n th e mat t e r ofa s en tenc e t h a t he had every reas on to beli eve had already b een decided

. ” Id
. at 450. T h e c ou rtag re ed , no tin g t h at t h e G u id elin es “a re ad vis o r y . ” R
. 1 2 3 a t7
. I tfur the r s t a t e d tha ti two ul d b e “ c o ns i dering [section ] 3553 (a) factors as w ellas the ad visory gui del i nes i n i ssui ng i ts deci si on on th e a pp ro pri ate sente nce. ” Id

. I n th is col loqu y w ith cou ns el, the co urt express ed cl ear l y that i t had notr eached a concl usi ve d ec is i o n reg ar d in g M r. H ok e’s se n te n c e a n d th at it woul d c o ns i derthe r el ev an t se nt en cingf ac to r s an d the ad visory natu re of t h e G uid eli ne s. T he cou rt, m oreover, g av e M r . Hok e ano pp ortu ni tyt o pr es en t wi tn es se s an d i nv i te d hi m t o a ddr ess the c o ur t. W e co nc l ude tha t th e cour t di d not deny M r. H oke hi s r i ght o fal l ocuti on an d , therefore, d id n ot com m it plain error. 210 N o. 08

- 3882 Conclusi on Forthe f or ego i ng r eas ons, the j ud gm ent o ft h e d i str i ct c o ur ti s a ffi r med

. A FFI RMED

6- 25- 09