Document: 542 U.S. 74 UNITED STATESv.DOMINGUEZ BENITEZ. No. 03-167. Supreme Court of United States. Argued April 21, 2004. Decided June 14, After respondent Dominguez Benitez (hereinafter Dominguez) confessed to selling drugs an informant, he was indicted on drug possession and conspiracy counts. On the count, faced a 10-year mandatory minimum sentence. His plea agreement with Government provided that would plead guilty dismiss charge; receive safety-valve reduction two levels, which allow court authorize sentence below otherwise minimum; did not bind sentencing court; could withdraw his if rejected Government's stipulations or recommendations. He pleaded charge, but, in colloquy, failed mention (though written say) accept See Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 11(c)(3)(B). The Probation Office subsequently found had three prior convictions, making him ineligible for safety valve, so District sentenced minimum. appeal, argued, first time, Court's failure warn him, as 11(c)(3)(B) instructs, recommendations required reversal. Ninth Circuit agreed, citing States v. Olano, 507 U. S. 725, applying Federal Criminal Procedure 52's plain-error standard. Held: To obtain relief unpreserved 11 failing, defendant must show reasonable probability that, but error, have guilty. Pp. 80-86. (a) When is dilatory raising reversal unwarranted unless error plain. Vonn, 535 55, 63. Except certain structural errors undermining criminal proceeding's fairness whole, tied prejudicial effect, standard phrased "error affects substantial rights," used 52, means effect judicial outcome. Kotteakos States, 328 750. held affect "substantial injurious influence determining . verdict." Id., at 776. Where burden demonstrating prejudice (or materiality) seeking relief, this has invoked similar standard, requires "a [the claimed], result proceeding been different" required. Bagley, 473 667, 682 (opinion Blackmun, J.). For defendants such Dominguez, establishing entitlement should be too easy: First, enforce policies underpinning 52(b) generally, encourage timely objections reduce wasteful reversals by demanding strenuous exertion get see supra, 73; second, it respect particular importance finality pleas, usually rest defendant's profession guilt open court, are indispensable modern justice system's operation, Timmreck, 441 780, 784. 80-83. (b) Circuit's test case fell short. Its element (whether "minor technical") no examination omitted warning's decision, failing repeated significant extent test's second understood rights issue when guilty). That court's does consideration evidence tending misunderstanding inconsequential indicating relative significance other facts may borne choice regardless any error. Nor consider overall strength case. When, here, record shows both controlled sale informant confession, one can fairly ask what thought gain going trial. point second-guess actual enquire whether warning made difference probability; hard here how affected Dominguez's assessment strategic position. Also, agreement, read native Spanish, specifically warned refused recommendations; fact, uncontested tends outcome here. 83-86. 310 F. 3d 1221, reversed remanded. SOUTER, J., delivered opinion Court, REHNQUIST, C. STEVENS, O'CONNOR, KENNEDY, THOMAS, GINSBURG, BREYER, JJ., joined. SCALIA, filed concurring judgment, post, p. 86. CERTIORARI TO THE STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR NINTH CIRCUIT. Dan Himmelfarb argued cause With briefs were Solicitor General Olson, Assistant Attorney Wray, Deputy Dreeben. Myra D. Mossman, appointment 540 1175, brief respondent.* JUSTICE SOUTER Court. 1 Respondent claims right consequence give warnings 11. Because claim preserved objection, applies, its requirement prove rights. question showing thus we hold obliged entered plea. 2 * In early May 1999, confidential working law enforcement arranged through Carlos buy several pounds methamphetamine. got sample from week later went restaurant Anaheim, California, consummate company confederates, whom brought shopping bag over kilogram drugs. meeting ended gave signal officers arrested dealers. methamphetamine information about supplier confederates. 3 A federal grand jury counts: possess more than 500 grams methamphetamine, 1,391 mixture, intent distribute. statutory, 10 years, maximum life. 84 Stat. 1260, 21 §§841(b)(1)(A), 846. appointed counsel, who began talking agreement. 4 September received letters Dominguez,1 asked new lawyer expressed discomfort counsel encouraging sign. counsel's motion, status conference, spoke judge. Again said dissatisfied representation, wanted "better deal." "talking disposition trial," answered, "At time I decided go trial." App. 46-47. Counsel same proceeding, "told prosecutor] all along there won't trial [date set] based my client's representations doesn't want 51. explained help negotiations, reason change counsel. 5 Shortly after parties agreed conspiracy, charge. stipulated known levels. Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual §§2D1.1(b)(6), 5C1.2 (Nov. 1999) USSG).2 valve important because invoke 18 § 3553(f), authorizing cases diminished culpability, only chance under years. turned satisfying five conditions, history, address. did, however, At hearing next day, changed almost warnings, including judge 11(c)(3)(B).3 6 issued report, them names, neither defense nor prosecutor negotiations. upshot escape receiving complaining quality hearing, told they might least eligible mitigation, not. "never knowledge points responsibility, anything like that." 109. replied light "lengthy proceedings" "difficult what" said. 112. 7 waiting 55 (2002), divided panel Appeals 1221 cited 725 (1993), indeed erred; plain, rights, correction interests justice. 8 affected, "prove minor technical understand plea." 3d, 1225.4 arguments statements colloquy sufficiently advised given inability speak English assurances likely qualify provision. Judge Tallman dissented, majority's analysis followed Vonn precedent. 1227-1228. 9 We granted certiorari, 1072 (2003), "[w]hether, order violation constitutes reversible plain demonstrate occurred." Pet. Cert. (I). now reverse. II make nonbinding recommendation, "advise follow recommendation request." 11, instructs every terms calls conviction entitling "A variance requirements rule harmless rights." 11(h).5 considered applies S., 63; 731-737. Although assessing reviewing look entire record, proceedings alone, 74-75, formulate shown, requires, 734-735, B 12 It whole even without regard mistake's proceeding. Arizona Fulminante, 499 279, 309-310 (1991) (giving examples). argue either generally sense.6 13 Otherwise, some way previously taken mean 750 (1946). 28 2111, Kotteakos, 776.7 where similarities formulation requiring different." (1985) J.) (adopting Strickland Washington, 466 668, 694 (1984), Brady Maryland, 373 83 (1963) (internal quotation marks omitted)); 685 (White, part judgment) (same).8 14 No appeared treating phrase "affecting rights" untethered Olano nonstructural doubting Bagley sensible model follow. As makes clear, claiming it, reasons, think easy underpin 73. Second, rest, all, operation system. 784 (1979). And, case, these reasons complemented worth repeating, claimed due process. 15 hold, therefore, seeks plea, ground district committed satisfy judgment informed different "sufficient undermine confidence outcome" Strickland, 694; J. mark omitted)).9 C 16 What already why applied technical," 1225, took Graibe, 946 2d 1428 (CA9 1991), turn 1983 commentary accompanied amendment 11(h). 2d, 1433. But test, Minore, 292 1109 2002), asks "the 1225. True, enquiry gets closer decision plead; take into account indication omission misled him. error.10 17 Relevant passed included statement intend trial, confirmation hearing. neglected relevant considerations also implications raised protests These statements, credited, confused sentence, clearly do suggest causal link between confusion relief. Other matters notice possible defenses appear subjects courts accustomed considering analysis. reveals evidence, does, ever decision; reasonably probable gone absent matter foolish. point, rather, And bench mattered, This 19 reverse remand further consistent opinion. 20 ordered. Notes: Stevan A. Buys Arnaldo Rafael Vicente Infante-Cabrera amicus curiae urging affirmance. speaks writes English. certified translator present hearings describe, Some English, translated assisted writing contemplated total offense level 27, downward adjustment acceptance responsibility. Assuming so, assuming minimal) low 70 months. USSG ch. 5, pt. (sentencing table) 11(e)(2). substance. refer current text opinion, likewise Rules 11(h) 52(b), each stylistic Courts employed tests. n. 8,infra. Congress instruction 1983, partial response inMcCarthy 394 459 (1969), felt caused many insubstantial. 66-71 (2002) (discussing history 11(h)). argument, made, prevail. single colorably structural. CfUnited 783-784 (1979) (holding cognizable collateral review). addressing prejudice, excusing direct review conviction, enough negate SeeChapman 386 18, 24 (1967) ("[T]he able declare belief [constitutional error] beyond doubt"). constitutional comes up review, heightened interest meet lenient Brecht Abrahamson, 619, 638 (1993). If instance, course, easier doubt verdict. Appeals, though those drawn connection toStrickland themselves harmless, rather Martinez, 289 1023, 1029 (CA7 2002) (on asking "whether violations defendant's] willingness guilty"); Johnson, 296, 302 (CA5 1993) (en banc) harmless-error comprehension full correct cf. 734-735 (1993) (the main harmless- analyses persuasion shifts defendant). One difference, underStrickland (1963), latter postconviction petition habeas corpus, motion vacate 2255. Those permit greater development record. Massaro 538 (2003) (Strickland procedurally defaulted 2255, advantages form cases). claims, contrast, most egregious cases. supra; 64 (noting meant disturb Timmreck). will rarely, ever, 2255; apply cases, difficult get, be. Cf. Raineri, 42 36, 45 (CA1 1994) (Boudin, ("[J]ust fair trials few perfect ones, flaws expected proceedings"). Our not, foreclose altogether. reasonable-probability as, with, preponderance things different. Kyles Whitley, 514 419, 434 (1995). another contrast knowing voluntary. held, example, obtained contains knew putatively waiving, reversedBoykin Alabama, 395 238, 243 (1969). saved overwhelming regardless. judgment. 22 agree much concur holding need evidence. Ante, 83, 9. 23 By adopted fewer four assertedly standards relating occurred, included. Chapman "harmless doubt" preserving, occurred); 637 (rejecting favor less defendant-friendly "`substantial influence'" (1946), overturning review); Agurs, 427 97, 111-113 (1976) basis described "reasonable probability"); id., 693-694 (distinguishing probability" still yet "more not" applicable newly discovered evidence). 434-436 Such ineffable gradations seem me quite ability mind mind) grasp, harmful helpful consistency rationality decisionmaking. especially hypothesizing events never fact occurred. enterprise factfinding, divination. purposes estimating happened, seems serviceable traditional "beyond not." pretend higher degree precision. extend our context. object proving mistake prevent probable, is,

Category: 0