Opinion ID: 748152
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Conflict as to Mandatory Minimum Incarceration Period

Text: 20 Hill entered his guilty plea to possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841, on June 26, 1996. At that time, the district court advised him the mandatory minimum sentence of incarceration for his offense was five years and the maximum punishment that could be imposed was forty years in prison, a fine, and supervised release. In December 1996, a revised Presentence Investigation Report stated that the offense carried a mandatory sentence of not less than ten years nor more than life imprisonment. Hill claims that this change in the mandatory minimum and maximum terms of imprisonment is a result of this court's decision in United States v. Richards, 87 F.3d 1152 (10th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 117 S.Ct. 540 (1996). Richards was decided after Hill pleaded guilty but prior to his sentencing. Based on these facts, Hill makes two arguments: (1) the application of Richards is a violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause of the Constitution and (2) the district court's failure to properly advise him of the mandatory minimum and maximum penalties violated Rule 11(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and rendered his plea involuntary. 21 Defendant's ex post facto argument is appropriately framed as a due process issue. 22 The Ex Post Facto Clause is a limitation upon the powers of the Legislature and does not of its own force apply to the Judicial Branch of government. Petitioner's claims arise out of judicial interpretation of a statute, and therefore, his rights derive from the Due Process Clause. Because, however, an unforeseeable judicial enlargement of a criminal statute, applied retroactively, operates precisely like an ex post facto law, we apply ex post facto principles to decide the due process issue. 23 Lustgarden v. Gunter, 966 F.2d 552, 553-54 (10th Cir.1992) (citations and quotations omitted). The relevant inquiry for this court under due process analysis is whether the change in this court's interpretation of 21 U.S.C § 841 was foreseeable. See id. at 554. If the interpretive change was foreseeable, it does not violate defendant's due process rights. See id. The fact that this court relied on the plain meaning of the language in § 841 when it decided Richards is evidence of the decision's foreseeability. See id.; see also Richards, 87 F.3d at 1157. We need not address the foreseeability of Richards, however, because we conclude Richards had no impact on defendant's sentencing. 24 Richards held that liquid by-products containing methamphetamine constitute a mixture or substance for purposes of 21 U.S.C. § 841(b) and, therefore, the entire weight of the liquid by-products should be included in determining a defendant's statutory minimum and maximum sentences. See Richards, 87 F.3d at 1157. Because Richards only addresses the determination of statutory minimum and maximum sentences, it does not affect the calculation of drug quantities under the Sentencing Guidelines, nor does it impact a defendant's sentence unless the applicable Sentencing Guideline range falls above the statutory maximum or below the statutory minimum. Under the Sentencing Guidelines, the district court properly determined that Hill had an adjusted total offense level of thirty-two with an incarceration range of 121-151 months. Thus, regardless of whether the statutory mandatory minimum was five years or ten years, under the Guidelines the minimum sentence Hill could have received was 121 months, absent exceptional circumstances which are inapplicable here. Because 121 months is greater than both the five and ten-year statutory mandatory minimums under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b), Richards had no effect on Hill's sentencing. Defendant's ex post facto challenge to the applicability of Richards is therefore irrelevant. 25 Hill also asserts that the district court violated Rule 11(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure by failing to properly advise him of the accurate minimum and maximum punishments at the time he entered his guilty plea. At the plea hearing, the prosecutor informed the district court that the statutory mandatory penalty was not less than five years nor more than forty years, but did not provide the court with information regarding the attributable drug quantities which ultimately determine the statutory penalty. Relying on the information provided by the prosecutor, the district court then advised defendant of these statutory minimum and maximum penalties. However, based on the quantity of drugs attributed to Hill at the sentencing hearing, higher mandatory minimum and maximum sentences were applicable. Rule 11(c) provides, in part, that 26 [b]efore accepting a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, the court must address the defendant personally in open court and inform the defendant of, and determine that the defendant understands the ... nature of the charge to which the plea is offered, the mandatory minimum penalty provided by law, if any, and the maximum possible penalty provided by law.... 27 F.R.C.P. 11(c). Thus, erroneous information regarding the minimum and maximum mandatory sentences violates Rule 11(c). 28 It appears that Rule 11(c) was violated. A violation of Rule 11(c), however, does not necessarily render defendant's plea involuntary. Rule 11(h) requires this court to apply a harmless error analysis, providing that [a]ny variance from the procedures required by [Rule 11] which does not affect substantial rights shall be disregarded. F.R.C.P. 11(h). Rule 11(h) requires a defendant to demonstrate that knowledge of the omitted or inaccurate information  'would have changed his decision to plead guilty.'  United States v. Wright, 930 F.2d 808, 810 (10th Cir.1991) (quoting United States v. Gomez-Cuevas, 917 F.2d 1521, 1527 (10th Cir.1990)). 29 The record contains no evidence Hill would have changed his plea had he known that ten years was the mandatory statutory minimum. Hill was aware that the Presentence Investigation Report calculated his mandatory statutory minimum sentence at ten years. 3 At the sentencing hearing, his own counsel expressly recognized that 121 months was the minimum applicable sentence. After determining the drug quantities attributable to Hill, the district court took a recess during which time defendant had an opportunity to talk to his counsel. When the court reconvened, both defendant and his counsel were asked if they had anything to add after the court calculated the adjusted offense level; each responded in the negative. Similarly, neither of them when asked offered a reason why the sentence should not be imposed at that time. Thus, despite ample opportunities during the sentencing hearing, Hill never contested the higher minimum sentence on the ground that it rendered his plea involuntary, nor did Hill suggest that he wished to withdraw his guilty plea. 30 Further, Hill was aware at the time he pleaded guilty that his punishment would be determined in accordance with the Sentencing Guidelines. Before accepting Hill's guilty plea, the district court properly instructed him that this case was subject to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. The sentence Hill actually received, 121 months of incarceration followed by supervised release, was based on the Sentencing Guidelines, and was not affected by the statutory minimum and maximum penalties. Under the Guidelines, the minimum sentence Hill could have received was 121 months. Because 121 months is greater than both the five and ten-year statutory mandatory minimums under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b), the statutory mandatory minimum had no impact on his sentence. Additionally, the 121 month sentence is within the five to forty-year statutory range disclosed to Hill by the district court at the time he entered his guilty plea. As a consequence, any violation of Rule 11(c) was harmless error. 31 The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.