Document: 516 U.S. 29116 S.Ct. 356133 L.Ed.2d 271 Joseph LIBRETTI, Petitioner,v.UNITED STATES. No. 94-7427. Supreme Court of the United States Argued Oct. 3, 1995. Decided Nov. 7, Syllabus * During petitioner Libretti's trial on federal drug and related charges, he entered into a plea agreement with Government, whereby, among other things, pleaded guilty to engaging in continuing criminal enterprise under 21 U.S.C. § 848; agreed surrender numerous items his property Government 853, which provides for forfeiture drug-tainted property; waived constitutional right jury trial. At colloquy agreement, judge explained consequences waiver latter right, but did not expressly advise him as existence scope Federal Rule Criminal Procedure 31(e) determination forfeitability. After sentencing Libretti imprisonment penalties, order question despite objection what saw failure find any factual basis entire forfeiture. The Appeals rejected both challenges order, ruling that 11(f) does require district court ascertain stipulated assets had Held: 1. 11(f)—which forbids enter judgment upon ''a guilty'' without assuring there is basis'' plea—does inquire embodied agreement. Pp. 362-368. (a) Rule's plain language precludes its application provision contained applies only guilty,'' refers defendant's admission guilt substantive offense charged an indictment charge. See, e.g., v. Broce, 488 563, 570, 109 757, 762-763, 102 927. In contrast, element sentence imposed following guilty, thus falls outside 11(f)'s scope. That operates punishment conduct, separate offense, demonstrated by text relevant statutory provisions, see, §§ 848(a) 853(a), legislative history, this Court's precedents, Alexander States, 509 ----, 113 2766, 125 441. Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered 491 617, 628, n. 5, 2646, 2654, 105 528 distinguished. light such weighty authority, persuaded insistence 853 is, essence, hybrid shares elements charge punishment. 362-364. (b) policy arguments construing reach asset provisions agreements—that inquiry (1) essential ensuring knowing voluntary, (2) will protect against government overreaching, (3) necessary ensure rights thirdparty claimants are fully protected—are rejected. 364-365. (c) District rest solely stipulation There ample evidence Judge understood requisites forfe iture concluded they were satisfied facts at time was imposed. 365-368. 2. On case, forfeitability 31(e)—which that, ''[i]f ... alleges subject forfeiture, special verdict shall be returned extent property''—was plainly adequate. accomplished trial, together colloquy, made it abundantly clear would end proceedings before lead directly court. Accordingly, cannot now complain receive verdict. rejects argument has foundation, absent specific advice from express, written waiver. Given aspect sentencing, fall within Sixth Amendment or innocence, McMillan Pennsylvania, 477 79, 93, 106 2411, 2420, 91 67, merely origin, need make reference 31(e). Nor must specifically defendant result since information communicated 11(c) valid. 368-369. 38 F.3d 523 (C.A.10 1994), affirmed. O'CONNOR, J., delivered opinion Court, Parts I II-A joined REHNQUIST, C.J., SCALIA, KENNEDY, SOUTER, THOMAS, GINSBURG, BREYER, JJ., II-B II-C III IV JJ. filed opinions concurring part judgment. STEVENS, dissenting opinion. Sara Sun Beale, appointed Durham, NC, petitioner. Malcolm Stewart, Washington, DC, respondent. Justice O'CONNOR Court.1 1 Petitioner enterprise, violation 84 Stat. 1265, 848 (1988 ed. Supp. V), forfeit Government. We decide whether requires determine exists can 2 May 1992, multicount superseding violations various drug, firearms, money-laundering laws. Included count alleging engaged (CCE), 848, operating cocaine marijuana distribution organization Wyoming Colorado 1984 1992. Conviction subjects to, ''the prescribed section 853.''2 848(a). further allege d entitled obtained used facilitate offenses, including limited specified indictment. See Fed. Crim. Proc. 7(c)(2) (''No may proceeding unless interest forfeiture''). 3 Trial began September presented testimony 18 witnesses, several individuals who purchased Libretti, establish involvement possession considerable amounts narcotics. also reflected purchase home, automobile, dozens automatic semiautomatic weapons during when modest sources legitimate income. Finally, revealed stored large money drugs safety deposit boxes storage facilities away home. 4 Following four days testimony, terms plead CCE (count 6). return pursue additional charges recommend sentenced mandatory minimum 20 years' imprisonment. Paragraph 10 provided 5 ''transfer title, all Division Investigation Attorney General including, to: real estate; personal property, guns, computer, every item States; bank accounts, investments, retirement cash, cashier's checks, travelers checks funds kind.'' 6 Two paragraphs contemplated described maximum penalty included ''forfeiture known discovered later up $1,500,000.'' paragraph 9, ''identify ll activity'' ''provide complete financial disclosure forms requiring listing interests.'' acknowledged ''that pleading Count Six Indictment, waive[d] rights, trial.'' It beyond dispute received favorable recommended conviction drop counts One those use firearm equipped silencer commission mandates 30-year consecutive term underlying offense. 924(c)(1). faced potential fine $2 million. 848(a), 853(a). 7 subsequent hearing advised clarified plea, mean trial,'' [would] [he's] not,'' ''all that's could forfeited States.'' App. 87, 88. then placed oath. He admitted voluntary indicated read significance fact [his] forfeited, owned [him] reason transaction.'' Id., 100. about pertained 2, future $1,500,000. assured subsequently assets, income forfeited. 88-89. lengthy exchange, reviewed each subparagraph describing composed allegation, found factually based. 121. 8 preparation presentence report, held hearing, imprisonment, followed years supervised release, ordered pay $5,000 well $50 assessment perform 500 hours community service. motion keeping counsel offered no declaring statute harsh law'' bitter pill dealt Congress,'' conceding we swallow.'' 149. conclusion however, stated record ''would just like object [he saw] whole forfeiture.'' 154. noted objection, replied heard me two [sic] think sufficient warrant granting have alternative.'' Ibid. December 23, pursuant 853. listed parcel Wyoming, condominiums, automobiles, mobile diamond ring, number traveler's checks. 155-164. check substitute asset. 162. appeal 9 While pending, entertained third-party claims some 853(n). March 1993 amended certain claimants. modified respect stating ''it unjust enforce agreement'' reasoning concession insufficient 309. magistrate conduct given opportunity show, preponderance evidence, portion Upon stayed Magistrate pending resolution appeal. Tenth Circuit order. (1994). ruled first lacked jurisdiction consider because notice noting divergence Courts regarding applicability agreements, contention assets. This conclusion, reasoned, follows ''is sentence, offense.'' 528. determined forfeitability, colloquy. 530-531. granted certiorari resolve disagreement Circuits agreements3 31(e).4 514 115 1398, 131 287 (1995). II 11 insists set aside (or least modified), neglected ''factual covered 11(f). Absent finding, argues, even authorize 12 claim very our analysis begin 11(f): 13 ''Determining Accuracy Plea. Notwithstanding acceptance should making satisfy plea.'' 14 By terms, ''plea guilty.'' Our precedent makes 762, 927 (1989) (''By entering accused simply discrete acts indictment; admitting crime''); North Carolina Alford, 400 25, 32, 160, 164-165, 27 162 (1970); Boykin Alabama, 395 238, 242, 89 1709, 1711-1712, 23 274 (1969); McCarthy 394 459, 466, 1166, 1171, 22 418 (1969). With definition mind, satisfies requirements ''determine[s] 'that admits constitutes therein guilty.' '' 467, S.Ct., 1171 (quoting Advisory Committee's Notes 11, U.S.C.App., p. 730). 15 A entirely different nature. Forfeiture or, here, Congress conceived racketeering crimes. person convicted ''shall 853.'' (emphasis added). ''in addition sentence.'' 853(a) 1963 (forfeiture Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO)). history Comprehensive Crime Control 1984, Pub.L. 98-473, Tit. II, 98 Stat.1976, characterizes S.Rep. 98-225, 193 (1983) (criminal sanction conviction''). intended operate laws, 16 precedents likewise characterized 441 (1993), observed authorized RICO clearly form monetary different, Eighth purposes, traditional 'fine.' 2775-2776. Similarly, $8,850, 461 555, 103 2005, 76 143 (1983), recognized ''criminal often include 567, 2013. And Austin 2801, rem civil 881(a)(4) (a)(7) punitive nature, so subsections limitations Amendment's Excessive Fines Clause. U.S., 2810-2812. himself conceded below F.3d, 17 true, points out, said (1989), defendant.'' 5. statement responded ''for defense'' transformed defense suggest escape otherwise appropriate pointing represent charges. Elsewhere sanction,'' id., 634, 2657, 620, 1, 2649, nonetheless ''simply'' activity. support contention, three Rules according him, treat ''[n]o If if any.'' finding 32(d)(2) (''[w]hen contains seize considers proper''). 19 Although procedural safeguards generated these unique realm do change fundamental nature attach heightened protections imposition types alter simple precisely that: ''assumption'' amount alleged proved,'' 31, 786, persuade us otherwise. assumption runs counter authority discussed above, indicates Moreover, supposing authoritative amendments bearing proper construction 11. Tome 513 696, 130 574 (1995), contrary. pluralit y treated Evidence 801(d)(1)(B) drafters' intent meaning Rule. ---- - 704. seeks Note appended 31 elucidate distinct agree 1972 amendment shed particular 11(f), added 1966. B next advances agreements. First, claims, voluntary. Next, declares overreaching. lastly, protected. contentions turn. unpersuaded guarantee Whether ''factually based'' knowingly voluntarily. correctly out McCarthy, 472, 1174 (the ''designed more accurate voluntariness [a] plea''); 730. (Rule protects defendants ''realiz[e] [their] actually charge''). But matters altogether. Forfeiture, said, sentence. questionable, informed uncoerced defendant, sound. second argument—that prevent prosecutorial overreaching—proves equally unavailing. As properly observes, limits establishing nexus requirement: Only suggests ensure, means inquiry, open door agreements exceed statute, particularly government's direct source revenue disparity bargaining power between defendant. Drysdale broad carry abuse ''can devastating unjustly.'' 2657. Nonetheless, ''[c]ases involving abuses individually lower courts, (and if) cases arise.'' 635, However valid concern overreaching be, not, face, address it. accept accompanied supporting reasons finds problematic. regard, note Department recently issued Revised Policy Regarding Settlement Plea Bargaining Civil Actions, Directive 94-7 (Nov.1994), instruct procedures ''[t]he settlement writing concede 13. precise court's independent obligation, any, propriety Sentencing Guidelines ''may'' reached parties specific, long applicable guideline range departs justifiable reasons.'' Commission, Manual 6B1.2(c)(2) (Nov.1993). bound parties' sentence: ''[T]he neither party nor free impose whatever feels justified.'' 81, ¶ 24 finally argues preserving claimants' rights. goes, little incentive resist their Once secured entitlement afforded inadequate safeguard entry deprives reverses burden proof. concludes insisting lessen hearings broad-ranging conservation scarce judicial resources. Whatever merits matter policy, 853(n), rather than vindicated. Third-party proceedings, assertion interests best protected fits poorly adversary system justice. C 25 Contrary suggestion dissent, post, __, nothing forfeitable. fact, case requirement established (change-of-plea hearing) (''[I]t product transaction forfeited''). Wyoming; automobiles; over $100,000 cash proceeds transactions; $12,000 inside paint home; ring; ''[a]ll currency checks'' recovered lockers, safes, person; computer system; accounts; GNMA investment certificates; bonds; checks; contents safe boxes. Additional identified bill particulars restraining issued, amended, 853(e) (''[u]pon preserve availability subsection section''). one week submitted detail, 81. 79. 26 Before issuing listened witnesses detailed transactions Libretti. Tr. 124-126, 137-139; 271-272; 495-501; 946-949. witness recounted home 1985 down payment, earning annual salary approximately $20,000. 179-180, 210-216; 123 (Presentence Report, Prosecutor's Statement 6); Presentence Report 37. Another told sports car $19,114. 907-913. Other possession, capacity firearms dealer, worth $243,000. 140-141, 156-162; 844-853; 9). testified having ''quite bit stashed away'' boxes, 834, occasion couple thousand'' dollars ''sitting around.'' 835. 155-156; 718-720, 738-743. customers broke facility rented locker briefcase containing (later estimated report $150,000), block cocaine, five trash bags, filled marijuana. 558-566, 588-589. Prior investigation contained, summary periods. 1986, worked restaurant grocery store manager, $20,000 per year. early 1987, employed temporary stock broker paid only. Later year, managed Tenneco thrift store. 1989, reported $50,000 business. 1988 partnership condominiums; rental meet expenses earn profit. Between June 1989 arrest 1991, full-time accounting supervisor, $40,000 &Par; 35-37. 28 detailing involved operation sums earned dealing. 122-135. substantial expenditures, house ($72,000 derived sale drugs) mortgage 1986 (again, allegedly drugs). 123. opened box 1987 $48,000 cash. another occasion, $10,000 account brother's name. 124-125. practice storing 124, 129. drugs, weapon, $65,000 place employment. $243,000 firearms. 123-124. These again reportedly activities; ''Libretti's gun business launder proceeds'' served ''justify [he] working times conspiracy and, working, bringing Lakewood investments.'' 127. suggested activities never law enforcement authorities. 134. Defense [presentence] Mr. background, education, circumstances accurate.'' 138. facts, going take regular illegal assets'' 29 view indictment, forfeiting lot, $8,000 transactions, IRA account, bonds, certificates, dissipated expended Libretti.'' 30 maintains, implausible appropriate. lack say Judge, uncertainty, erred him. adequacy forgo disagree. 32 equate familiar innocence. Gaudin, 515 2310, 2314, 132 444 (1995) (''The Constitution gives demand crime charged''). Without disparaging importance 31(e), compels protection. enjoy 67 (1986) (''[T]here where turns findings fact''); Cabana Bullock, 474 376, 385, 689, 88 704 decision ever required jury''); Spaziano Florida, 468 447, 104 3154, 3161, 82 340 (1984) (no death penalty). 33 right. details communicate 1974 11(c), 731 ''codifies (1969), apprised relinquishes guilty'') Specific safeguards, decline invitation expand say, mention to'' inform might follow ''feels consequence likely 731. 34 ''acknowledge[d] speedy 80. 80-81. extensive change-of-plea dismissal jury. responses prepared accordance objected issues 150, 35 addition, represented stages sentencing. Apart small class responsibility advantages disadvantages attendant forgo. ineffectiveness Court. ''[a] provide ineffective assistance counsel, serve predicate setting 574, 765. 36 Of course, mislead determining imposed, permit obvious confusion stand uncorrected. record, hint labored misapprehension. spell declined gone forward, eventually been forfeitable, viewed entirety, observed, ''there [the change-of-plea] [Libretti] wanted issue, thought one.'' 531. Taken together, insist 37 For reasons, reject Under obliged ''right provides. ordered. 39 40 join obliges have. one, instruction obligatory generally. 11(c)(3) (''Before accepting personally of, understands tried jury''). reasonable understand covering claim. Since copy see being called plead''), summarized, ibid. (''Arraignment conducted consist reading substance charge''), naturally covers 41 If, speaking statements affirmatively extend error current law, status be. argue misleading, 87 (''if you .... you're not''), GINSBURG conclude otherwise, giv en her 42 43 states, courts obligation forfeitures jury-trial provides, it, therefore briefly my issue decides. 44 carefully comprehensively waive crimes refer unusual Procedure: 45 ''If 46 forfeiture''); 11(c)(1) (court charge'' offered). 47 Just intelligent extraordinary turn awareness override. uncommon brought through bare clause Clarity, easily achieved. Libretti's, judges readily avoid unknowing relinquishment routinely apprising defendants, hearings, 31(e)'s atypical special-verdict requirement. 48 Failure cause revisiting pretrial references brief exchange form. 8. Second, informative, jurors voir dire 49 kind constituting indirectly enterprise. answer relating it.'' 188. 50 lay triers—telling them presence forfeiture—Libretti persuasively ignorance prescribes. 51 dissenting. 52 conclusions create duty believe important emphasize proposition law—rather parties—defines property. apart legal plea. reason, wrong holding defenda nt unequivocally 'forfeit property,' 523, 526 1994). 53 illustrate independently supports judgments enters notes, demonstrates supported much longer circumstance, unthinkable wealthy bargain voluntarily ''forfeiting'' entitlement. This, law. No willing defines outer boundaries permissible so. Cudahy aptly put mere so.'' Roberts, 749 F.2d 404, 409 (C.A.7 1984). 54 alone traced precedents. Bigelow Forrest, ''transcend[s] jurisdiction'' orders statute. Wall. 339, 351, L.Ed. 696 (1870). similar vein, Ex parte Lange imposing excess authorization voidable, ''void.'' 163, 178, 872 (1874). Precisely extrastatutory punishments implicate act, must, procedure mandated itself threatens bounds.1 Were define power. 55 sum, Instead, prescribes pre-existing statutorily limits. states ''enter plea....'' stating, impliedly sentences greater apply guilt, preclude result. Nothing 56 Because foregoing thoughts implicit examination assure indeed 6, line drawn, endorse almost Nevertheless, disposition fairly approve petitioner's 6.2 57 majority marshals re, example, concluding while young boy, augmented 1975, necessarily deemed ''substitute assets.'' recognizes, basis. Ante, __. 58 sole wholesale affirmed here stems willingness General.''3 explained, forfeit. determination. Here, reveals existed sweeping Indeed, sought hold purpose existed. precluded undertaking pro se divested jurisdiction. However, jurisdictional bar relieve prior 59 fell bounds did, vacate remand consistent syllabus Reporter Decisions convenience reader. Detroit Lumber Co., 200 321, 337, 282, 287, 499. SCALIA THOMAS SOUTER II. Section property: ''(a) Property Any subchapter chapter punishable year irrespective State — ''(1) constituting, from, obtained, indirectly, violation; ''(2) person's used, manner part, commit, ''(3) forfeit, (2), in, against, contractual affording control over, ''The court, person, chapter, subsection. lieu derives profits fined twice gross proceeds.'' 853(p) value of'' forfeitable unrecoverable Compare Reckmeyer, 786 1216, 1222 (C.A.4) agreements), cert. denied, 479 850, 107 177, 93 (1986), 1984) (same), 470 1058, 1770, 830 (1985), Boatner, 966 1575, 1581 (C.A.11 1992) Bachynsky, 949 722, 730-731 (C.A.5 1991) upheld forfeiture), 506 121 101 (1992), 1994) (case below). Compare, 531 (''specific ''unambiguous ''knowing plea'' waiver); Robinson, 418, 421 1993) (''a [under ] made''); Garrett, 727 1003, 1012 (a forfeitability; writing), aff'd. grounds, 471 773, 2407, 85 764 (1985); Zang, 703 1186, 1194-1195 1982) (''[t]he timely request''), 464 828, 103, 78 (1983). act similarly implicated imposes arguably erroneous Ginsburg why transferred state, federal,

Category: 0