Document: 535 U.S. 55 UNITED STATESv.VONN No. 00-973. Supreme Court of the United States. Argued November 6, 2001. Decided March 4, 2002. CERTIORARI TO THE STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR NINTH CIRCUIT Federal Rule Criminal Procedure 11 lays out steps that a judge must take to ensure guilty plea is knowing and voluntary. 11(h)'s requirement any variance from those procedures "which does not affect substantial rights shall be disregarded" similar general "harmless-error" rule in 52(a). However, 11(h) include plain-error provision comparable 52(b), which provides defendant who fails object trial error may nonetheless have conviction reversed by showing among other things plain affected his rights. After respondent Vonn was charged with federal bank robbery firearm crimes, Magistrate Judge twice advised him constitutional rights, including right represented counsel at every stage proceedings; signed statement saying he had read understood rights; answered yes court's questions whether explanation statement. When later pleaded robbery, court relinquishing, but skipped advice required (11)(c)(3) would assistance trial. Subsequently, charge later-charged conspiracy count. Again, waiving, did mention counsel. Eight months later, moved withdraw on cite error. The denied motion sentenced him. On appeal, sought set aside all convictions, for first time raising 11. Ninth Circuit agreed there been held Vonn's failure before District omission no import because subjects violations harmless-error review. Declining go beyond proceeding considering aware Government met its burden, under review, effect vacated convictions. Held: 1. A lets pass without objection satisfy 52(b)'s rule. Pp. 62-74. (a) Relying canon expressing one item commonly associated group or series excludes another left unmentioned, claims specification review shows an intent exclude standard harmless paired 52. this only guide, whose fallibility can shown contrary indications adopting particular statute probably meant signal exclusion common relatives. Here, harmless- alternatives are together 52, having apparently equal dignity 11(h), applying terms application Procedure. To hold imply latter half 52 has errors amount finding partial repeal 52(b) implication, result sufficiently disfavored, Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co., 467 U. S. 986, 1017, as require strong support. Support, however, readily found, merely selected possible interpretation supposedly intentional counterpart while logic equally allow reading that, rule, silent direct appeal. 63-66. (b) attempts find support pointing Rule's text McCarthy States, 394 459 — decided when relatively primitive developments case's wake culminating enactment. One clearly expressed objective end practice reversing automatically error, stemming expansively 52(a)'s could applied cases. nothing do choice between plainerror Nor persuasive reason think Advisory Committee Congress considered they accepted view erroneously attributes McCarthy. focused disarray, after McCarthy, Courts Appeals treating trivial errors. cases cited Committee's Notes cannot reliably suggest should never apply errors, made such assertion mentioned plainerror/harmless-error distinction. Rather, taken word added some courts proceedings. implied more than it said, certainly implicitly so far might cover case. 66-71. (c) position also tendency undercut 32(e), governs withdrawal creating incentive file motions sentence, afterward. This tends separate meritorious second thoughts mere sour grapes over sentence once pronounced. But act early stake prove less if until always burden harmlessness. 72-74. 2. reviewing consult whole record intended error's assessed existing record, mean limit strictly proceeding, here. ostensibly supports position; enacted, case point. addition transcript hearing colloquy, during initial appearance arraignment, four times either affirmed heard them. Because circumstances defendants presumed recall information provided them prior cf. Bousley 523 614, 618, arraignments relevant fact well within understanding open consideration. Since transcripts arraignment were presented Circuit, resolve their bearing claim done so. 74-76. 224 F. 3d 1152, remanded. SOUTER, J., delivered opinion Court, Part III unanimous, Parts I II joined REHNQUIST, C. O'CONNOR, SCALIA, KENNEDY, THOMAS, GINSBURG, BREYER, JJ. STEVENS, filed concurring part dissenting part, post, p. 76. Deputy Solicitor General Dreeben argued cause With briefs Olson, Acting Underwood, Assistant Attorney Keeney, Paul R. Q. Wolfson, Joel M. Gershowitz. Monica Knox respondent. her brief Maria E. Stratton.* JUSTICE SOUTER Court. 1 avoids reversal criminal albeit raised timely objection, thus harmless. Fed. Crim. Proc. failed obtain carrying converse 52(b). 2 Rules committed 11, voluntary, laying accepting plea. Like 52(a), comply "does disregarded." 3 question here carry burdens even put proving harmless.1 limited examining colloquy entered, look entire begun defendant's matter leading eventual 4 We 5 * February 28, 1997, Alphonso armed 18 §§ 2113(a) (d), using relation crime violence, § 924(c). appeared day Judge, "the retain attorney [his] own choosing each sta[g]e proceedings." App. 15. said appointed represent 6 17, three days being indicted, Vonn, along counsel, arraignment. told about stages gave form entitled "Statement Defendant's Constitutional Rights," His satisfied Clerk then asked statement, question. 7 May 12, came indicated plead charge. addressed and, up point, followed 11(c)(3) relinquish pleading guilty, tried counsel." 8 Several stakes went grand jury returned superseding indictment, charging additional count commit robbery. Although count, September 3, change both pleas guilty. waived pleas, time, prosecutor draw attention she "remember inform Id., 61. court, mistaken remark going 11(c)(2), simply counsel.2 9 He not, instead based request mistake facts motion, June 22, 1998, 97 prison. 10 two well, making issue Judge's advise trial, Rule. import, since "supersedes normal waiver rule," 1155 (CA9 2000) (citing States Odedo, 154 937 1998)). consequence rights.3 declined "go rights," accept colloquies evidence continuing 3d, 1155. It shoulder show granted certiorari, 531 1189 (2001), conflicts Circuits legitimacy (1) placing appealing basis appeal,4 (2) looking parts official see deviation 11.5 issue, vacate remand. 12 requires address enter understands law case, defendant. evolved course 30 years scheme detailed plan, now includes dealing slip-up itself. Subsection (h) reads "[a]ny language comes close tracking providing generally is, consideration subject opportunity Government's harmless, See 52(a) ("Any defect, irregularity disregarded"); Olano, 507 725, 734 (1993). 13 companion "plain-error" covering issues district way: "Plain defects affecting noticed although brought court." appellate considers qualifies plain, tables turned demonstrating substantiality rights: sat "substantial rights" affected. 734-735. And relief discretion further persuade "`seriously affect[ed] fairness, integrity public reputation judicial proceedings.'" 736 (quoting Atkinson, 297 157, 160 (1936)). 14 Congress's importation into eliminate give If answer yes, loses failing obvious occurs. no. 15 most recourse argue itself: unequivocally judge's "variance" letter disregarded classic shorthand formulation standard. exception nonobjecting defendants. 16 Despite unqualified simplicity, reviewed standard, Even though makes distinction collateral variant applicable attack, Brecht Abrahamson, 619, 638 (1993), evaluating habeas concedes adoption stringent 28 2255 (1994 ed.), established our holding Timmreck, 441 780 (1979), overturn absent "`inconsistent rudimentary demands fair procedure'" constituted "`complete miscarriage justice,'" id., 783 Hill 368 424, 428 (1962)). concession prudent, explaining speak clear leave Timmreck undisturbed,6 Timmreck's validity aftermath 1983 amendments. 17 Whatever significance then, simple face Indeed, closest gets argument excuses invocation interpretive salient statutory text. congressional express customary clarity favor. At best, we before, unmentioned Pauley BethEnergy Mines, Inc., 501 680, 703 (1991); Burns 129, 136 (1991) ("An inference drawn silence credited textual contextual intent"). plausibility expressionexclusion strike what practice, 11(h). For formally enacted procedure. consequently 1017 (1984), 19 found. In place, indulge assumption something pair just argument. thinks implication let relieved prejudicial, disreputable system. But, course, "implication" consistent say possible, logic, inapplicable appeal whatever. depends upon rule; has, counterpart, one, liking. B 20 Recognition equivocal character claimed speaking solely forces hope confirmation opposed hospitable effort leads (1969), enactment approach, least, us track, followed, stemmed expansive What did, therefore significant. 21 decided, primitive, requiring much detail personally proposing establish acting voluntarily, factual supporting conviction. 462.7 stood tax evasion, McCarthy's sentencing possibilities, absence threats promises. There discussion elements charged, it. despite allegation acted "willfully knowingly," lawyer consistently client neglectful, ibid. defense deficient rested conform Rule, 464, emphasized procedural safeguards served important interests guarding against inadvertent ignorant waivers 465. remanded evidentiary knowingly ordered resulting vacated. 22 says Court's understanding, failings, combined meet requirements bar relief. reasoning unsound, reasons, rules name. parties' nothing. serious remand new state mind entered plea, anything Under former, Hasting, 461 499, 509, n. (1983); likewise points counter ostensible prejudice make, Young, 470 1, (1985). initiate litigation. Yet litigation wanted demonstrated affirmatively showing, S., 469. no, reference time-wasting how voluntary really earlier hearing. 469-470. intense skepticism succeed, little understood, subsequent showed desired plead. sum, review; extend evidence. 23 attempt purely speculative. worse, speculation plausible mattered. observe obvious. So Having willful violation, repeatedly sloppiness.8 contradiction denial mental alleged bespoke unknowing indifference affront While need religitate rewrite safe actual speculative authority stops short 24 consider problem events subsequently invested holding. 1975, few down, transformed formula testing readiness proceed obliging specified charge, statute, law. had, example, content know self-incrimination confrontation 1975 revision instruction matters cross-examination confrontation, 11(c)(3); "at ... trial" next (as case), ibid.; consequences perjury hearing, 11(c)(5). 25 details newly necessarily equate importance overarching knowledge voluntariness already versions felt bound treat lapses mandating automatic Amendments App., 1568 (hereinafter Notes) Boone, 543 2d 1090 (CA4 1976); Journet, 544 633 (CA2 1976)). approach imposed cost mistakes neither nor justified, threatening disgrace legal system prompted 1568. 26 reasoned per se justified "[a]n inevitable amendments increase risk judge, inadvertently deviate degree procedure very literal appear require." amendments, "it became apparent ever given crabbed ceremony exalted substance." Ibid. 27 report dispense burdens. stresses "crabbed interpretation" By amendment correct these cases, says, thought could. ignores instances reversal, illustrations "considerable disagreement" arose significance. Given focus disarray courts, citations reported plain-error/harmless-error think, rather, adopt best taking word. "It meaning utilized respect 1569. responding apply. pinpointed problem, pinpoint answer. note "Rule 52" apply, "neither applied," infer enacting treatment. response itself erroneous, C 29 doubt withdrawing authorized grant presentence carries "fair reason" withdrawal, move except "direct 2255," stages. 32(e). just" motions,9 confirm suggestion creates "`near-presumption'" granting sentencing, Amendment 32, 1621 Barker, 514 208, 219 (CADC 1975)). good sense; through imposed, (say, doubts understanding) "near-presumption" concentrates where genuine corrected easily, promotes finality heavily dependent ours. law; choose lapse moment fall relax wait struck satisfactory; uncorrected place shoulders. might, perhaps, sufferable merit stays mum invites relax. discount duty judge. rhetoric aside, point rule: value toes, sits fixed sit speaks on.10 31 reasons terms. enough 32 final goes scope enquiry whatever confined proceeding," 1156, precedent recognizing enters serves wasteful post hoc probes psyche, 470, zealous policy behind demands. question, proceedings: "`must resolved transcript' portions (e.g., hearing) cases." 1569 Coronado, 554 166, 170, (CA5 1977)). 33 True, (which rest it); admonished "[t]here adequate substitute nature him," (emphasis original). commentary quoted, McC-arthy event outside responded laconic referring illuminating record; inferences conversations lawyer, present alternative [was] entered" factfinding court. 34 third source information, corners still record. Transcripts were. 618 (1998) (a copy indictment him), fact, "other record" 35 Appeals. Probably owing self-confinement narrower ruling rehearing requesting make first-appearance reason, joint appendix us, Adarand Constructors, Inc. Mineta, 534 103 (2001). 36 Appeals's judgment proceedings opinion. 37 ordered. Notes: Saul Pilchen David Porter National Association Defense Lawyers et al. amici curiae urging affirmance. rightly urge As recognized, 2000), squarely barred reviewUnited 937, 940 1998). challenge Odedo controlling precedent, previously preserved current litigant recent lower relied resolution [the litigant] concede correctness precedent." Williams, 504 36, 44-45 (1992). evidently confusion precise presumably there, here, raise constitutes "waiver," contend "forfeited error" That, coupled below correctly 11(c)(2) "if attorney," "has necessary, will [him]." noted, 1,supra, specifically case; supra, 939, Hence, reject Compare,e.g., (case below); Lyons, 53 1321, 1322, 1995), Gandia-Maysonet, 227 5-6 (CA1 2000); Bashara, 1174, 1178 (CA6 1994); Cross, 57 588, 590 (CA7 1995); Quinones, 473, 475 (CA11 1996). 1155, Parkins, 114, 118 Johnson, 296, 302 1993); Lovett, 844 487, 492 1988); Jones, 143 1417, 1420 1998); 1322-1323. legislative mandate, provide reliable insight especially when, precisely proposed. SeeBeech Aircraft Corp. Rainey, 488 153, 165-166, (1988) (where "Congress amend draft way particularly determining document enacted"). product Committee, Congress, transmitted Procedure, H. Doc. 98-55 (1983) (submitting accompanied Judicial Conference containing amendment). Prior provided, part: "The refuse nolo contendere addressing voluntarily plea.... unless plea." theAlford theory protesting innocence conscious avoid expenses vicissitudes North Carolina Alford, 400 (1970). violation rise level SeeUnited Driver, 242 767, 769 2001) ("Even `fair reason' return Square One"); Siegel, 102 477, 481 1996); Martinez-Molina, 64 719, 1995). Contrary STEVENS'S suggestion,post, 78-80 (opinion part), "perverse" conditioning commits entering expressly recognized obliged understand requirements. lawyer's obligation reasonably necessary render effectual refrain trifling sense call attention. perfectly true uncounseled spot chooses self-representation warning perils entails, Faretta California, 422 806, 835 (1975), assumes. Any odds 459, 465 combat defendants' "often frivolous" attacks aiding decision. retort tend "unconstitutional pleas" obviates bears defendant: defendant? 38 part. 39 stated opinion, agree evaluated rather required. analysis am firmly convinced history, special office conclusion, "urged Government" 469 "place[d] Government," 40 deciding complied "determine noncompliance, ha[d] engendered sharp difference appeals." 468. ultimately unanimously endorsed urged Government.1 No prejudice.2 conclusion "prejudice inheres 11" uncontroversial.3 471. 41 During preceding noncompliance reversal. Thus, plain-error4 violations. Rejecting "extreme sanction reversal" technical violations, subsection closely tracks 52(a).5 clear, "Subdivision responsibilities proceedings, rejects extreme reversal." deleted added). embodies Congress' incorporating found omitting 52(b).6 pre-existing background adding via add straightforward 42 decision harmlesserror tailored purpose premise present, adequately forth explains perverse uninformed deviations arising has.7 establishing harm objects words, asks assumes unaware. implausibility this, imagine sound like: "Your Honor, your me my trial." 43 implausible scenario, reaches, relies image cunning defendant, fully knowledgeable games sitting silently slips following dictates See, e.g., ante, 63 ("[A] occurs"); 73 satisfactory"). My fundamentally different considerations motivated place. Namely, light gravity assume base plea.8 44 inclusion reflection impact party unaware allocation gives follow meticulously colloquy. undermines incentives. 45 determine whether, account yet parties discussed That sufficient refusing seeUnited 55-61 (1992) (STEVENS, dissenting), but, finds appropriate accord "a privilege 59. "We conclude deprives designed facilitate accurate determination plea."McCarthy, 471-472. Not led rejecting remedy questioned proposition presumptively prejudicial. overcome presumption. states: reviews rightsUnited 734-735 "Harmless incorrectly asserts 52(b)Ante, 65 ("To disfavored"). states like errorsAnte, ("The [Vonn] ..."). Unlike purpose, inconceivable same parallel example context illustrates Pursuant 806 wishes himself "be dangers disadvantages selfrepresentation," 835. Assume pro se, warn self-representation. warn, surely impose Faretta's dangers. illogical context, inform. reflects logic. SeeKercheval 274 220, 223 (1927) ("A differs admission extrajudicial confession; conviction.... Out persons accused crime, careful proper full consequences").

Category: 0