Opinion ID: 988001
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Thornton’s Offense and Guilty Plea

Text: On January 1, 2007, law enforcement officers found a paper bag inside Thornton’s car containing 109 grams of crack cocaine, 75 grams of powder cocaine, and $1,450 in cash. Although Thornton was not present in the car at the time, the packaging materials inside the paper bag contained Thornton’s fingerprint. On several subsequent occasions, law enforcement agents used a confidential informant to purchase cocaine from Thornton and his associates. In 2011, Thornton was indicted for 1 count of possession with intent to distribute more than 28 grams of crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B)(iii) (Count 1), and 5 counts of possession with intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C) (Counts 2 through 6). In his plea agreement, Thornton agreed to plead guilty to Count 1 (the crack cocaine offense) and the government agreed, among other things, to accept the plea in full satisfaction of all possible criminal charges against Thornton. At a change of plea hearing in November 2011, Thornton indicated that he had met with his appointed defense attorney, Mickey Johnson, and had sufficient 2 Case: 12-11267 Date Filed: 07/03/2013 Page: 3 of 10 time to talk with Johnson about the case. Thornton stated that he was satisfied with Johnson’s services, that they had discussed the facts of the case and the range of sentences, and that he (Thornton) wished to plead guilty. When the district court asked Thornton if he and Johnson had discussed the Sentencing Guidelines, however, Thornton indicated that they had not. Attorney Johnson similarly indicated that he was not sure to what extent they had discussed the Guidelines. The district court then continued the plea hearing until after Johnson had explained the Guidelines to Thornton. When the plea hearing resumed in December 2011, Thornton assured the district court that he had discussed the Sentencing Guidelines with attorney Johnson. Thornton affirmed that he understood what the Guidelines were, how they operated, and that the district court was not required to sentence him pursuant to the Guidelines, but could impose any sentence permitted by statute. Thornton indicated that he and Johnson had tried to estimate what the sentence would be, but that Thornton understood that he could not rely on that estimate. The district court accepted Thornton’s guilty plea, finding that there was a factual basis for the plea, that Thornton was guilty, and that he entered the plea freely and voluntarily.