Opinion ID: 699307
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: failure to inform defendant of the sentencing guidelines

Text: 47 Appellant argues that the district judge's failure to advise him of the existence of the sentencing guidelines during both the first and second plea change hearings was error that mandates reversal of his convictions. Both Casallas and the government agree that the district court's failure to so advise technically violated Rule 11(c)(1)'s requirement that the court inform the defendant of the fact that the court is required to consider any applicable sentencing guidelines but may depart from those guidelines under some circumstances. The government, however, argues that this technical violation was harmless within the meaning of Rule 11(h). We agree. 48 Conceding that he was, in fact, aware of the existence of the guidelines, appellant nonetheless urges that the court's error mandates reversal. The law is clear that the district court was not required to ascertain and communicate to appellant an estimate of the guideline range. See Commentary to Rule 11(c)(1) (indicating that a defendant is not entitled to know his guideline range prior to pleading guilty). Further, Rule 11(c)(1)'s commentary indicates that the purpose of this portion of Rule 11 is to assure[ ] that the existence of guidelines will be known to a defendant before a plea of guilty. Strict compliance with Rule 11(c)(1) in this case would have required the district court to advise appellant of a fact of which he was already aware, to-wit, that the sentencing guidelines existed. 49 Rule 11(h) states that [a]ny variance from the procedures required by this rule which does not affect substantial rights shall be disregarded. The Eleventh Circuit has previously noted that the circumstances for excusing noncompliance with the Rule because of harmless error are fairly limited. United States v. Zickert, 955 F.2d 665, 668 (11th Cir.1992). 11 This case presents one of those limited situations. Under the specific circumstances of this case, where the defendant was advised of the controlling statutory sentence, where the defendant was thereafter sentenced within that range, and where the defendant in fact knew that the sentencing guidelines existed and would be used to establish a sentencing range, we hold that the trial court's failure to mention the sentencing guidelines during the plea did not affect appellant's substantial rights. Accordingly, the trial court's failure in this regard, while falling short of Rule 11's requirements, is harmless error.