Opinion ID: 2983002
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Validity of Crum’s Guilty Plea

Text: Crum’s primary argument on appeal is that the district court erred in accepting Crum’s guilty plea to a marijuana conspiracy, because the plea lacked a factual basis as required by Rule 11(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.
Where, as here, a defendant fails to raise an objection in the district court, this Court reviews a district court’s determination that a guilty plea has a sufficient factual basis for plain error. United States v. McCreary-Redd, 475 F.3d 718, 721 (6th Cir. 2007). To establish plain error, a defendant must demonstrate: (1) that an error occurred in the district court; (2) that the error was plain, i.e., obvious or clear; (3) that the error affected defendant’s substantial rights; and (4) that this adverse impact seriously affected the fairness, integrity or public reputation of the judicial proceedings. United States v. Koeberlein, 161 F.3d 946, 949 (6th Cir. 1998). Moreover, to secure relief for an unpreserved Rule 11 violation, a defendant must demonstrate “a reasonable probability that, but for the error, he would not have entered the plea.” United States v. Mobley, 618 F.3d 539, 544 (6th Cir. 2010) (quoting United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74, 76 (2004)).
Pursuant to Rule 11(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, “[b]efore entering judgment on a guilty plea, the court must determine that there is a factual basis for the plea.” This rule is designed to “protect a defendant who is in the position of pleading voluntarily with an understanding of the nature of the charge but without realizing that his conduct does not actually fall within the charge.” McCarthy v. United States, 394 U.S. 459, 467 (1969). The rule itself “does not provide any guidance concerning the steps a district court should take to ensure that a factual basis exists.” McCreary-Redd, 475 F.3d at 722. However, we have previously 6 No. 13-6299 explained that “[t]he ideal means to establish the factual basis for a guilty plea is for the district court to ask the defendant to state, in the defendant’s own words, what the defendant did that he believes constitutes the crime to which he is pleading guilty.” Mobley, 618 F.3d at 545 (quoting United States v. Tunning, 69 F.3d 107, 112 (6th Cir. 1995)). Nonetheless: This ideal method is by no means the only method . . . . [T]he district court may determine the existence of the . . . factual basis from a number of sources, including a statement on the record from the government prosecutors as well as a statement from the defendant. And, of course, it is possible that witnesses may be called to state the factual basis with the defendant providing confirmation. Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). In this case, the district court acknowledged that it needed to “determine that there is an adequate basis for the guilty plea[]” prior to accepting Crum’s plea. (R. 383, Second Plea Transcript, Page ID # 2488.) The court then proceeded to ascertain that Crum understood the elements of the crime, and had read and agreed with the statement of stipulated facts. Crum’s argument centers on the content of the stipulated facts. He contends that, even accepted as true, the stipulated facts fail to support the “agreement” element of criminal conspiracy.2 The elements of a conspiracy to distribute marijuana under 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841 are: (1) an agreement to violate the drug laws, (2) knowledge and intent to join the conspiracy, and (3) participation in the conspiracy. United States v. Gunter, 551 F.3d 472, 482 (6th Cir. 2009). An agreement to enter a conspiracy need not be explicit. Rather, “a tacit agreement or mutual understanding” is sufficient. United States v. Paige, 470 F.3d 603, 609 (6th Cir. 2006). 2 For the first time in his reply brief, Crum argues that the factual stipulations also fail to support the “participation” element of conspiracy. Reply Br. at 4. However, he waived this argument by failing to raise it in his initial brief. Sanborn v. Parker, 629 F.3d 554, 579 (6th Cir. 2010) (“We have consistently held . . . that arguments made to us for the first time in a reply brief are waived.”). Crum’s initial brief solely argues that the stipulated facts do not support the “agreement” element of conspiracy. 7 No. 13-6299 The district court did not commit plain error in finding that Crum’s stipulated facts were sufficiently indicative of an agreement to violate drug laws to support his marijuana conspiracy conviction. The statement of stipulated facts includes a summary of a Title III intercepted conversation in which Crum volunteered to help his cousin drive to Memphis in order to transport “a large quantity of marijuana to the Greeneville area.” (R. 200, Amended Plea Agreement, Page ID # 1253.) Upon learning that Crum did not have access to a car, Crum’s cousin offered to rent a vehicle for Crum to use. Crum proceeded to discuss logistics with his cousin and then suggested that they meet to talk in person because he did not “trust talking about these matters over the phone.” (Id.) In a subsequent conversation that day, Crum told his cousin that “he wanted to go to Memphis at night and drive back to Greeneville with the marijuana in the day time.” (Id.) Crum’s cousin then told Crum that he would be speaking with another individual about the plan soon, and would call Crum after that conversation to provide him with more details. Pointing to the fact that he did not ultimately drive the car for his cousin, Crum contends that these factual stipulations merely indicate that he volunteered to participate in the unlawful activity, but provide no basis for the conclusion that his cousin ever “tacitly or expressly agreed to accept [Crum’s] offer.” Appellant’s Br. at 15. To the contrary, the extended logistical conversation between Crum and his cousin, including his cousin’s offer to rent a car for Crum to use, is suggestive of an agreement to violate the drug laws. Furthermore, the latter conversation between Crum and his cousin, in which his cousin stated that he would call Crum to give him more details, implies that his cousin had accepted Crum’s offer. Although the stipulated facts do not include a “formal agreement” between Crum and his cousin, the intercepted phone calls can “reasonably be interpreted” as establishing their agreement to join a common plan. Paige, 470 8 No. 13-6299 F.3d at 608. It is therefore neither “obvious” nor “clear” that the district court erred in determining that the stipulated facts accepted by Crum provided a sufficient factual basis to support the agreement element of conspiracy. Koeberlein, 161 F.3d at 949.