Opinion ID: 2811805
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Court’s Explanation of the Offense

Text: Under Rule 11, the district court is required to determine that a defendant pleading guilty has not been coerced and that he understands the nature of the charge and the consequences of the plea. United States v. Stitzer, 785 F.2d 1506, 1513 & n.2 (11th Cir. 1986). If the charges do not involve “esoteric terms or concepts unfamiliar to the lay mind,” then reading the indictment and granting the opportunity for the defendant to ask questions may suffice to inform the defendant of the charges. United States v. James, 210 F.3d 1342, 1344-45 (11th Cir. 2000) (quoting United States v. DePace, 120 F.3d 233, 237 (11th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1153 (1998)). Even a complex charge can be understood adequately when (1) the defendant is reasonably educated, (2) the court reads the indictment and lists its essential elements, (3) the court confirms that the defendant and counsel have reviewed the indictment, (4) the defendant admits to the conduct, and (5) the defendant does not have any questions. Id. at 1345 (citing DePace, 120 F.3d at 238). The charge in this case was simple, involving no concept more complex or esoteric than “conspire” or “distribute.” These are surely concepts the lay mind can grasp. Further, Defendant confirmed at the hearing that his attorney had discussed the indictment with him and that he understood it. In addition, the district court read the charge in the indictment verbatim to Defendant before 10 Case: 14-10746 Date Filed: 06/25/2015 Page: 11 of 26 accepting his plea. Given these facts, it is clear that Defendant understood the charge against him. Thus, Defendant cannot meet the requirements for plain-error review because his allegations reveal no error, plain or otherwise, in the proceeding at which he entered his plea of guilty. We therefore affirm Defendant’s conviction.