Opinion ID: 2774165
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Valid Plea

Text: A review of the transcript of the plea hearing discloses that there are no issues for appeal regarding the validity or voluntariness of the plea. In the instant case, the District Court advised Phillips of his constitutional rights, and ensured that he understood the consequences of waiving those rights. The District Court advised Phillips that he could persist in his plea of not guilty, proceed to a jury trial where the jurors would have to unanimously determine his guilt, and that he would have the right to the assistance of counsel in so doing. The District Court explained that, by entering a plea of guilty, Phillips would be waiving his right to a trial by jury and foregoing pre-trial challenges to certain of the Government’s evidence. Next, the District Court addressed the nature of 4 the charge, the potential penalties, the advisory guidelines range, and the factual basis for the guilty plea. Finally, the District Court discussed with Phillips his right to present witnesses and evidence. While the plea colloquy in this case did not include the customary explanation of the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses against him, Phillips was represented by trial counsel at the time of his plea, failed to object to the perceived inadequacy of the plea colloquy, and has, at no time, sought to withdraw his plea or otherwise argue that it was involuntary or unknowing. As a result, in order to succeed on appeal with a claim that his plea was not knowing or voluntary, he must demonstrate that the District Court committed plain error. United States v. Goodson, 544 F.3d 529, 539 (3d Cir. 2008). In order to meet the plain error standard, Phillips would need to demonstrate that his substantial rights were affected and that allowing his plea to stand would seriously affect the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Id. Here, there is no evidence demonstrating that Phillips would have gone to trial had he known of his right to confront witnesses. In light of the above, Phillips’s counsel has correctly determined that any challenge to the voluntariness of his plea would not have arguable merit.