Opinion ID: 4520637
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Sufficiency of the Plea Allocution

Text: Marshall argues in the alternative that the district court’s failure to inform him of the personal-benefit requirement violated Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 and rendered his plea unknowing and involuntary. 2 A guilty plea entered in ignorance of a material element of the 2 We reject the government’s argument, that Marshall waived this issue by failing to present it to the district court. Although his petition could have more clearly framed the issue, it specifically noted that a defendant must be informed of the essential nature of the charge against him before he may enter an intelligent guilty plea. That suffices to preserve it for appeal. 7 offense of conviction is a constitutional violation that may be remedied through collateral proceedings. See Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614, 618–19 (1998). Nonetheless, reversal is not required. Because Marshall did not challenge the sufficiency of the plea allocution in his original criminal proceedings, we review for plain error, which requires (among other things) a showing that the error affected Marshall’s substantial rights. United States v. Lloyd, 901 F.3d 111, 119 (2d Cir. 2018). “In order to demonstrate that a Rule 11 error affected his substantial rights, a defendant must show a reasonable probability that, but for the error, he would not have entered the plea.” United States v. Torrellas, 455 F.3d 96, 103 (2d Cir. 2006). Here, for the same reasons that he cannot show prejudice in the context of his ineffectiveness claim, Marshall has not demonstrated a reasonable probability that he would not have pleaded guilty even if properly notified of the personal-benefit element.