Opinion ID: 2798921
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Plain Error and Substantial Right

Text: Even if the plain error standard were appropriate, Ushery’s plea should still be vacated. I agree with the majority that the district judge’s actions in this case “raise[d] legitimate Rule 11 concerns.” Maj. Op at 14. In fact, I have no doubt that a violation occurred, because “[u]nder Rule 11, the judge’s role is limited to acceptance or rejection of the plea agreement . . . .” United States v. Harris, 635 F.2d 526, 528 (6th Cir. 1980). Once the judge has gone beyond that role, as the district judge did in this case, the rule has been violated. To avoid offering Ushery any relief, the majority found that his substantial rights were not affected. This contention is plainly wrong. Ushery only needed to demonstrate “a reasonable probability that, but for the error, he would not have entered the plea.” United States v. Dominguez Benitz, 542 U.S. 74, 83 (2004). He did that, even by the majority’s own recounting of the facts. This conclusion is unsurprising, as most instances of Rule 11(c)(1) violations impact a defendant’s substantial rights. United States v. Bradley, 455 F.3d 453, 463 (4th Cir. 2006) (“[I]t will be rare that a clear violation of Rule 11’s prohibition against judicial No. 14-5046 United States v. Ushery Page 26 involvement in plea negotiations does not affect substantial rights.”). However, relying on no case law whatsoever, the majority has required Ushery to show that “but for the district court’s actions, he would have proceeded to trial.” Maj. Op. at 14. This incorrect recitation of the law is no more than a naked attempt to unfairly encumber defendants with a more difficult burden on plain error review. When analyzed using the correct legal standard, the facts of this case clearly support a finding that Ushery’s substantial rights were affected. Ushery had twice pleaded not guilty and refused to accept the government’s plea offer by the time that this third hearing, the rearraignment, had occurred. The hearing itself was agreed to by district judge explicitly for the purpose of “discuss[ing] the potential of . . . [Ushery] enter[ing] a plea of guilty.” (R. 61, Hr., p. 2). Resetting the trial date, the district judge reasoned, was in Ushery’s “best interest;” after all, defense counsel had just announced, with respect to the guilty plea, that he could “get it resolved.” (R. 19, Min. Ent.); (R. 60, Tel. Conf. Tr., p. 6). Defense counsel, however, did not get it resolved. The date of the hearing arrived, and Ushery was still not prepared to consent to the government’s proposed plea agreement. That was Ushery’s response even after the district judge had informed him that he had reached the “drop-dead date” for pleading guilty. (R. 61, Hr., p. 2). Ushery indicated that he felt pressured, but the district judge again, later in the proceedings, reminded him that “today is the last date that I am going to permit you to plead guilty if you want to . . . receive that third point for acceptance of responsibility.” (Id. at 7). It was not until after the impermissible negotiations took place that Ushery finally indicated some openness to accepting the proposed plea agreement. But when the plea agreement was purportedly finalized, Ushery again expressed his reluctance to pleading guilty. Instead of accepting the agreement, he suggested that he had not had enough time to discuss his pleading options with his new attorney and that he remained uncomfortable with the agreement, given the length of the proposed sentence. The district judge responded, first by asking rhetorically whether additional time would be more or less helpful to Ushery, and then by explaining to Ushery the nature of his Hobson’s choice. With no meaningful support or assistance even from his own attorney, it was only at this point that Ushery consented to the government’s proposed plea agreement. Notably, the agreement was only slightly different from the one he had flat out rejected at the beginning of the proceedings. There is no fair reading of these facts that suggests No. 14-5046 United States v. Ushery Page 27 Ushery would have accepted this plea absent the district judge’s participation in the plea negotiations. “Rule 11(c)(1) was adopted as a prophylactic measure.” Davila I, 133 S. Ct. at 2149. It establishes a “bright line rule,” United States v. Pena, 720 F.3d 561 (5th Cir. 2013), and whether the judge’s participation is aimed at helping the defendant is entirely irrelevant. United States v. Harrell, 751 F.3d 1235, 1239 (11th Cir. 2014). Under no circumstances may the court suggest terms to be negotiated or serve as the mediator in the course of negotiations, as was the case here. The district court had two options in this situation: to either accept or reject an agreement that the parties had entered into or to permit the case to proceed to trial. If the parties failed to enter into an agreement, a trial would appropriately ensue. Whether a trial was in Ushery’s best interest is not a subject for appellate review under these circumstances. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. at 85 (“[I]f it is reasonably probable he would have gone to trial absent the error, it is no matter that the choice may have been foolish.”). The role of this Court is to judge whether there is a reasonable probability that Ushery would not have accepted the plea when he did but for the judicial interference. The record, even as laid out in the majority opinion, clearly indicates that Ushery would not have entered into the plea agreement, absent the Rule 11 violation. Therefore, the guilty plea and sentence should be vacated and the case remanded to the district court where Ushery can either enter a plea, absent judicial interference, or proceed to trial.