Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. C.W.E.H., a juvenile, Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1988-02-10
Citations: 838 F.2d 993
Docket Number: No. 87-5226
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. C.W.E.H., a juvenile, Appellant.
Judges: Before ARNOLD, FAGG, and BEAM, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 838
Pages: 993–994

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. C.W.E.H., a juvenile, Appellant.
No. 87-5226.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 15, 1987.
Decided Feb. 10, 1988.
Terry L. Pechota, Rapid City, S.D., for appellant.
Philip Hogan, Sioux Falls, S.D., for ap-pellee.
Before ARNOLD, FAGG, and BEAM, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
C.W.E.H. appeals from the district court's dismissal of her motion for postcon-viction relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. She claims the district court committed error in denying her an opportunity to withdraw her guilty plea to a charge of assault with a dangerous weapon. We affirm.
C.W.E.H. argues she is entitled to section 2255 relief because the district court did not comply with the requirements of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 at the change of plea hearing. More specifically, C.W.E.H. claims the district court committed error because it: failed to inform her of the nature of the charge; failed to inform her that her plea could not be withdrawn if the court did not accept the government's sentencing recommendation; and failed to inform her of her rights to present evidence, to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses, and to appeal. C.W.E.H. argues the district court's "failure to comply with the dictates of [r]ule 11 constitutes a manifest miscarriage of justice, a denial of due processf,] and a failure to observe the rudiments of fair procedure."
We must agree with C.W.E.H.'s assertion that the district court's rule 11 dialogue leaves a great deal to be desired. We conclude it is unnecessary to consider C.W.E.H.'s arguments, however, because the content of her postconviction motion is causally deficient. The motion does not allege that had the district court correctly informed C.W.E.H. under rule 11 she would have pleaded not guilty. United States v. Runck, 817 F.2d 470, 471 (8th Cir.1987). C.W.E.H.'s allegation that "[h]ad I [known] that I was going to receive incarceration, I would have never pleaded guilty to the charge[ ]" misses the mark because the district court was not required to disclose the eventual sentence with this precision before accepting her guilty plea. Thus, "even if [r]ule 11 was violated, postconviction relief would not be appropriate, because the violation is not causally connected to [C.W.E.H.'s] plea and conviction." Runck, 817 F.2d at 471.
Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the district court.