Legal Document

526 U.S. 23119 S.Ct. 961143 L.Ed.2d 18 PEGUERO v. UNITED STATES(97-9217)142 F.3d 430, affirmed. SUPREME COURT OF THE STATES119 No. 97 9217 MANUEL DeJESUS PEGUERO, PETITIONER STATES ON WRIT CERTIORARI TO APPEALS FOR THIRD CIRCUIT [March 2, 1999] Justice Kennedy delivered the opinion of Court. 1 We granted certiorari to resolve a Circuit conflict over whether district court's failure advise defendant his right appeal as required by Federal Rules Criminal Procedure provides basis for collateral relief even when was aware trial court omitted give advice. Compare, e.g., Thompson United States, 111 109 (CA11 1997) (defendant entitled if he knew through other sources); States Sanchez, 88 1243 (CADC 1996) (same); Reid 69 688 (CA2 1995) (per curiam) (same), with Tress 87 188 (CA7 not appeal); Drummond, 903 F.2d 1171 (CA8 1990) (same). hold that does entitle him habeas and hence suffered no prejudice from omission. 2 Petitioner Manuel Peguero pleaded guilty conspiracy distribute cocaine, in violation 21 U.S.C. § 846. At sentencing hearing held on April 22, 1992, District Court sentenced petitioner 274 months' imprisonment. The did inform sentence. 3 In December 1996, more than four years after sentenced, filed pro se motion set aside conviction See 28 2255 (1994 ed., Supp. II). He alleged counsel ineffective various reasons, including file notice pursuant petitioner's request. App. 63, 65. appointed new counsel, who an amended adding claim at proceeding violated Rule 32(a)(2) failing This last gives rise question before us. 4 evidentiary hearing. testified that, upon being once asked lawyer appeal. 139. Consistent testimony, found although had failed sentence, occurred. 1:CR 90 01 (MD Pa., July 1, 1997), 168, 184. also credited testimony told want take because hoped cooperate Government earn sentence reduction. Id., 180 181; cf. Fed. Crim. Proc. 35(b) ("The court, made within one year imposition may reduce reflect defendant's subsequent, substantial assistance investigation or prosecution another person has committed offense"). 5 Relying our holding Timmreck, 441 780 (1979), rejected any 32, without regard prejudice, is enough vacate under §2255. actually time sentencing. 01, based its finding request 180. 6 Appeals Third affirmed ruling. It subject harmless-error review appeal, purpose been served relief. Judgt. order reported 142 430 (1998), 192, 194 195. 7 provided: 8 "Notification Right To Appeal. After imposing case which gone plea guilty, shall unable pay cost apply leave forma pauperis. There be duty imposed following nolo contendere, except If so requests, clerk prepare forthwith behalf defendant." 9 Current 32(c)(5) likewise imposes 10 requirement serves important functions. will often soon imposed, taken into custody transported elsewhere, making it difficult maintain contact attorney. relationship between attorney strained sentencing, event, disappointment outcome terms attorney, moreover, concentrating matters, fail tell though months later think fact gave advice standard practice do so. addition, advised judge realize affront judge, rule modify 35. Advising clear opportunity announce intention well 10-day filing period runs. ("If must immediately defendant"); 4(b) (establishing extended 30 days "excusable neglect"). 11 These considerations underscore importance comes itself. Trial judges meticulous precise each requirements 32 every case. undisputed, then, error. 12 A 32(a)(2), however, all circumstances. Our precedents establish, general rule, sufficient only prejudiced Hill 368 424 (1962), example, then-applicable version 32(a) make explicit speak own behalf. allege "affirmatively denied speak," Judge deprived relevant information, "would have anything say formally invited speak." 429. established "a comply formal Rule," ibid., prejudice; these premises, relief, id., 428 13 So, also, unavailable " 'fail[ed] requirements' advising mandatory special parole term subject. U.S., 785. argue "that unaware properly would guilty." 784. Having "only [was] technical Rule" insufficient justify Ibid. 14 this case, full knowledge Court's him. violation, standing alone, Timmreck instruct, 15 decision Rodriquez 395 327 (1969), otherwise. Rodriquez, fails requested resentencing showing likely merit. 329 330. Without questioning we conclude implicated here factual While note course rejecting Government's belated argument should remanded factfinding determine reason simply factor combination untimeliness lengthy proceedings delay already endured led "just circumstances" accord final further proceedings. 331 332. limited fact-specific conclusion support automatically requires allow 16 amicus distinguish (and, presumably, Hill) ground raise direct but so, whereas absence "judicial warning [required 32(a)(2)] effectively undermine ability appeal." Brief 20. argument, oversight, nonprejudicial, entitles Even errors raised are review. 52(a) prohibits federal courts granting "d[o] affect rights." ("Any error, defect, irregularity variance rights disregarded"); see Bank Nova Scotia 487 250, 254 255 (1988) ("[A] invoke supervisory power circumvent inquiry prescribed . 52 is, pertinent respect, binding statute duly enacted Congress, discretion disregard Rule's mandate they constitutional statutory provisions"). 17 Accordingly, independent judgment Affirmed. O'Connor, J., concurring 19 20 22 whom Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer join, concurring. 23 I join Court, write separately express my views about meaning context. When, here, there two ways error could said defendant. First, might That concludes circumstances, shown 24 Second, meritorious grounds event. opinion, why demonstrate attempting show harmed require defendants specify their some merit impose heavy burden initial motion. fulfilled obligation wanted identify develop arguments penalized first instance attributable judge. result consistent resolution (1969). lawyer, requiring view, adopt different results judge's

Classification Label: 0