Opinion ID: 151413
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Misstatement of Maximum Sentence

Text: When a defendant does not object during the plea colloquy or at sentencing before the district court, we review the district court’s actions for plain error. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 51(b), 52(b); United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55, 59 (2002). To show plain error, a defendant must show (1) error (2) that 1 Defendant had previously made two objections to the Presentence Report, which were listed in the addendum, concerning enhancements for abuse of trust and vulnerable victim. However, Defendant withdrew these objections at sentencing. Defendant made no objections relating to the length of the maximum sentence. 3 was obvious or clear, (3) that affected the defendant’s substantial rights and (4) that affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceedings. United States v. Vonner, 516 F.3d 382, 386 (6th Cir. 2008) (en banc). Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11, the district court must inform the defendant of “any maximum possible penalty, including imprisonment, fine, and term of supervised release.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(1)(H). However, Rule 11(h) states that “[a] variance from the requirements of this rule is harmless error if it does not affect substantial rights.” Thus, we must determine whether the district court committed plain error by violating Rule 11(b)(1)(H), and, if so, whether the error affected Defendant’s substantial rights such that Defendant is entitled to a remedy. “The mere fact that a defendant does not know at the time of his guilty plea the exact sentence that [s]he will receive does not mean that the plea was entered into unknowingly.” United States v. Malcom, 114 F.3d 1190, at  (6th Cir. 1997) (table) (citing United States v. Stephens, 906 F.2d 251, 254 (6th Cir. 1990) (“the mere fact that an attorney incorrectly estimates the sentence a defendant is likely to receive is not a fair and just reason to allow withdrawal of a plea agreement”) (internal quotation omitted)). However, it is well-established that “for a defendant’s plea of guilty to be voluntary, the defendant must be aware of the maximum sentence that could be imposed.” King v. Dutton, 17 F.3d 151, 154 (6th Cir. 1994). See also United States v. Syal, 963 F.2d 900, 905 (6th Cir. 1992) (“To plead knowingly, the defendant must know the maximum possible penalty provided by law.” (internal quotations omitted)). In the instant case, the government does not dispute that the district court misinformed Defendant about the maximum sentence for mail fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1341 at the plea hearing. The court stated that the maximum sentence was five years, when, in fact, the maximum sentence 4 was twenty years. Neither the government nor defense counsel objected to the court’s statement that the maximum sentence was five years. Further, the indictment against Defendant did not indicate the maximum possible sentence for mail fraud, and there was no written plea agreement in this case. Thus, nothing in the record indicates that Defendant independently knew or was advised of the correct maximum sentence prior to pleading guilty. The district court ultimately sentenced Defendant to seventy months’ imprisonment, which is ten months longer than the maximum sentence stated by the court at the plea hearing. Therefore, the district court committed a clear error by misinforming Defendant of the maximum sentence in violation of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(b)(1)(H). See, e.g., Hart v. Marion Corr. Inst., 927 F.2d 256, 259 (6th Cir. 1991) (granting habeas relief to the petitioner because the trial judge erred by incorrectly informing the petitioner that the possible term of incarceration was fifteen years rather than seventy-five years before the plea was entered). Having found that the court committed a clear error, we must next determine whether the error was harmless. An error may be considered harmless only if it does not affect a defendant’s substantial rights. Syal, 963 F.2d at 906. An error affects a defendant’s substantial rights if it is “prejudicial,” in the sense that it “affected the outcome of the district court proceedings.” United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 734 (1993). See also United States v. Story, 503 F.3d 436, 438 (6th Cir. 2007); United States v. Oliver, 397 F.3d 369, 379 (6th Cir. 2005) (“a sentencing error affects substantial rights where it causes the defendant to receive a more severe sentence” (internal quotation and citation omitted)). In the instant case, Defendant claims that she was unaware of the maximum sentence before the plea hearing, and nothing in the record indicates that the defendant independently knew or was 5 advised of the correct maximum sentence prior to the plea colloquy. Furthermore, the district court’s error may have caused Defendant to go to prison for longer than she thought possible for the crime she committed. Thus, the court’s error affects Defendant’s substantial rights. See, e.g., Syal, 963 F.2d at 906 (holding that “the failure to notify the defendant of the term of supervised release and its possible effect on his sentence was not harmless error” where “[n]othing in the record suggests that the defendant understood that his sentence would include supervised release [and] [t]here was no written plea agreement by which he might have been warned”); United States v. Walsh, 733 F.2d 31, 34 (6th Cir. 1984) (finding that the defendant “suffered identifiable prejudice because the sentence imposed exceeded the maximum sentence he was promised he would receive”). Cf. United States v. Williams, 899 F.2d 1526, 1531 (6th Cir.1990) (holding that court’s failure to tell defendant in Rule 11 plea hearing that he faced a mandatory period of supervised release was harmless error because the defendant was on notice of the supervised release requirement set out in the plea agreement and the defendant did not claim he was unaware of the requirement, only that court technically had failed to comply with requirements of rule). Accordingly, because this error affected Defendant’s substantial rights, as well as the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceedings, the district court committed plain error.
Having determined that the district court committed plain error by misinforming Defendant of the maximum sentence, we must next determine the appropriate remedy. Defendant argues that she must either be resentenced to a period of not more than five years or her plea must be vacated and the case remanded so that she can plead anew or proceed to trial. Defendant states that either 6 remedy would appropriately correct the Rule 11 error. The government argues that resentencing Defendant to five years, or sixty months, imprisonment is the proper remedy in this case. This Court has found both resentencing and vacating a guilty plea to be appropriate remedies to correct a Rule 11 error. In Hart v. Marion Correctional Institution, 927 F.2d at 259, this Court found the appropriate remedy to be resentencing when a defendant was misinformed about the maximum sentence. Both the trial judge and defense counsel had told the defendant that the maximum sentence was fifteen years’ imprisonment, when the maximum sentence was in fact seventy-five years’ imprisonment. This Court held that the appropriate remedy was for the defendant to be resentenced to a term not to exceed fifteen years–the maximum sentence he was told at the time of his plea. If the resentencing court then sentenced the defendant to more than fifteen years’ imprisonment, he would be allowed to withdraw his plea and the state could try him under the original indictment. Id. In United States v. Reader, 254 F. App’x 479, 482 (6th Cir. 2007), this Court found the appropriate remedy to be vacating the defendant’s plea when a defendant was misinformed about the maximum term of supervised release. The government had stated in the written plea agreement that maximum term of supervised release was three years, when, in fact, the maximum term of supervised release was life. In addition, the district court incorrectly stated at the plea hearing that the maximum term of supervised release was three years. Id. at 481. In light of the substantial difference between a three year term of supervised release and a life term of supervised release, this Court found that there were serious questions about whether the defendant would have entered a guilty plea if he knew he was facing a life term of supervised release. Thus, this Court held that the plea should be vacated. Id. at 482. 7 The facts and circumstances of this case more closely resemble Hart than Reader. In the instant case, there was no written plea agreement compounding the error of the district court, and the difference between the maximum sentence stated by the court at the plea hearing and the actual maximum sentence available is closer to Hart than to Reader. Furthermore, the Presentence Report correctly identified the maximum sentence as twenty years’ imprisonment, and Defendant acknowledged at sentencing that she read the report, discussed it with her attorney, and had no objections. Thus, at least by the time of sentencing, Defendant should have known that the maximum sentence exceeded five years’ imprisonment and did not move to withdraw her plea. Finally, Defendant agrees that resentencing her to a term of no more than sixty months would appropriately correct the Rule 11 error. Accordingly, we hold that resentencing Defendant to a term not to exceed sixty months’ imprisonment is the proper remedy under the facts and circumstances of this case.