Opinion ID: 340928
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Marijuana Charge Against Sierra.

Text: 17 The court's parsimonious colloquy with Sierra also fell short of the Rule 11 standard in the case of the marijuana charge. At the December 7 hearing, the court read to Sierra the information charging him with knowing possession of marijuana with intent to distribute for remuneration. The court did not ask whether Sierra understood the nature of the charge. A week later, during the hearing at which Sierra pleaded guilty, the court gave an incomplete paraphrase of the charge: Are you entering (this guilty plea) because you did as charged in these informations . . . two, possess approximately 20 pounds of marijuana in violation of the law? Sierra responded in the affirmative. No further effort was made to ascertain whether Sierra understood the marijuana charge. The information was not reread to give Sierra an opportunity to respond. 6 18 Sierra's affirmative answer to the question posed by the court certainly did not show an understanding of the information. The intent to distribute element, so crucial to the federal offense, 7 was not included at all in the colloquy, and the misleading content of the court's question would make hazardous any reliance on the December 7 reading of the charge to Sierra. 19 The court could have required Sierra to acknowledge his understanding of the marijuana charge at the December 7 proceeding or could have reread the information during the December 14 colloquy or could have stated the substance of the information fully and accurately in the questioning of Sierra. None of these was done, and as a result Rule 11's purpose of assuring a complete record of the determination of the plea's voluntariness was frustrated. 20