Opinion ID: 172252
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Application to Byrum

Text: Applying this legal framework, the question remains whether the district court here accepted Byrum's guilty plea as required by Rule 11. Byrum contends the plea colloquy manifests no unequivocal Rule 11 acceptance of his plea and that therefore he should have been permitted to withdraw his plea for any reason. We disagree. The district court properly conducted the necessary Rule 11 colloquy, ascertaining that Byrum knowingly and voluntarily pleaded guilty: [Court]: Are you pleading guilty voluntarily and of your own free will? [Byrum]: Yes, Your Honor. [Court]: Has anyone threatened or coerced you to get your guilty plea today? [Byrum]: No, Your Honor. ... [Court]: It appears that the plea agreement in this case is a simple exchange of promises in return for your plea to Count 5 of the indictment. The government will agree to dismiss the remaining counts at time of sentencing. This agreement is entered on the basis of a recommended sentence of 15 years and both you and the government are waiving your right of appeal if that sentence is imposed. That right of appeal is an important right. What that means, if I should make an error of law in this case at sentencing or otherwise, you are waiving or giving up your right to take that error to a higher court and ask that it be corrected. You're also giving up your right to file a habeas corpus petition in the future and ask that I correct any error. Do you understand that and is it your intent to waive that right? [Byrum]: Yes, Your Honor. [Court]: With regard to the recommended sentence, do you understand and appreciate that I can refuse to accept that agreement after I've read the presentence report? [Byrum]: Yes, Your Honor. [Court]: And you understand that if that happens, you will again be standing before me on a plea of not guilty, it will simply vitiate this whole proceeding? Do you understand that? [Byrum]: Yes, Your Honor. R., Vol. II at 10-14 (emphasis added). Then the court elicited the factual basis constituting Byrum's criminal conduct and guilt. [Court]: I will remind you that you are under oath and subject to the penalties of perjury and I'll direct ... [the prosecutor] to ask questions necessary to establish a factual basis to the charge. [Prosecutor]: Yes, Your Honor. As to Count 5 of the indictment, in June of 2007, did you use a minor to engage in conduct lasciviously displaying her genitalia? [Byrum]: Yes. [Prosecutor]: Did you know that the girl was under 18 years of age? [Byrum]: Yes. [Prosecutor]: Was your purpose to produce a picture of the minor engaging in conduct lasciviously displaying her genitalia? [Byrum]: Yes. [Prosecutor]: And do you admit that the camera used to make the picture was manufactured outside the state of Oklahoma? [Byrum]: Yes. Id. at 14-15. Finally, the district court explained it would accept Byrum's guilty plea, conditioned only on the court's subsequent review of the PSR to ensure the parties' agreement did not deviate from the sentencing goals. The court stated: I find, based on your clear and responsive answers to my questions and those of counsel, that you are competent to enter this plea. That you do so voluntarily and knowingly, that is with full understanding of the rights that you are giving up. I am not going to accept the plea until I review the presentence report and am satisfied, as I mentioned earlier, that the plea agreement in this case does not undermine the goals of the sentencing guidelines. I will accept it provisionally subject to that review. Id. at 15-16 (emphasis added). As is evident, the court conducted a thorough colloquy and provisionally accepted Byrum's plea. While the court's language could have been more precise, the bottom line is plainthe district court accepted Byrum's guilty plea as contemplated by Rule 11 subject only to its review of the PSR. Byrum's effort to parse the district court's explanation is ultimately unpersuasive. The district court, after ascertaining Byrum knowingly and voluntarily pleaded guilty and placing the circumstances underlying Byrum's criminal conduct on the record, was concerned that the parties' agreed-upon sentence may frustrate the sentencing guidelines' goals. Rule 11 permits the court to delay acceptance of the plea agreement and examine Byrum's PSR for exactly this purpose. See Fed. R.Crim.P. 11(c)(3)(A). Notably, the court also informed Byrum that should it reject the sentencing agreement, his guilty plea would not be accepted, thereby giving Byrum an unfettered right to withdraw his plea. See Fed.Crim. R.P. 11(c)(5)(B). Ultimately, the district court language, although ambiguous at first glance, sufficiently indicated the court's acceptance of Byrum's guilty plea. Rule 11 does not prescribe any specific language of acceptance. Byrum's argument could easily have been avoided had the district court chosen a more unambiguous statement such as I accept your guilty plea or I therefore find you guilty. And Rule 11 allows for the unequivocal acceptance of a plea while still reserving in the district court the right to reject the underlying plea agreement. Though the district court here did not make such an unequivocal statement of intent, on this record we are convinced the court accepted Byrum's guilty plea.