Court Opinion

ID: 2964724
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:30:08.07026+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:01:59.505426
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

        No. 96-2285

                                    UNITED STATES,

                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                                     JOHN PATTI,

                                Defendant, Appellant.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

                   [Hon. Steven J. McAuliffe, U.S. District Judge]
                                              ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                 Selya, Circuit Judge,
                                        _____________
                              Cyr, Senior Circuit Judge,
                                   ____________________
                              and Lynch, Circuit Judge.
                                         _____________

                                 ____________________

            John Patti on brief pro se.
            __________
            Paul M. Gagnon, United States Attorney, and Jean B. Weld,
            ______________                              ____________
        Assistant United States Attorney, on Motion for Summary Disposition
        for appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                     May 2, 1997
                                 ____________________

                      Per Curiam.   Pursuant to a written plea agreement,
                      __________

            defendant John J. Patti pled guilty to a one count indictment

            charging him with conspiracy  to commit access device (credit

            card)  fraud   by  knowingly   and   intentionally  using   a

            counterfeit credit card, in violation of 18 U.S.C.   371, and

              1029(a)(1).  He was sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment.

                      On  appeal he seeks for  the first time to withdraw

            his  guilty plea.  To prevail on this "afterthought ground" a

            defendant must show a  "substantial defect" in the record  of

            the  Rule 11 proceeding itself.   United States  v. Piper, 35
                                              _____________     _____

            F.3d  611  (1st Cir.  1994), cert.  denied,  115 S.  Ct. 1118
                                         _____________

            (1995); see also United States v. Noriega-Millan, -- F.3d ---
                    ________ _____________    ______________

            , 1997 WL 151202 *4 & n.4 (1st Cir. Apr. 7, 1997).1   This he
                                                              1

            has not done.

                      Patti claims that his plea  was involuntary because

            he did not understand the "true nature of the elements of the

            crime charged in the indictment."   He alleges that there was

            an insufficient factual basis for his plea, that his attorney

            failed  to  explain  the   charge  to  him,  and   the  court

            mischaracterized the charged crime. 

                      The record contradicts these assertions.  Patti was

            advised by  the Court, in plain and  understandable terms, of

                                
            ____________________

               1An appellant faces a "high hurdle" when he seeks to set
               1
            aside a guilty plea for the first time on appeal, although
            the contours of the burden are "somewhat cloudy."   Noriega-
                                                                ________
            Millan, -- F.3d ---, 1997 WL 151202 *6 n.4 (citations
            ______
            omitted).  We need not reach that issue here. 

                                         -2-

            the  elements of the offense.   True, in  addition to telling

            Patti 

            that  he  was charged  with  conspiring to  use  a particular

            "counterfeit"  card,   the  court   also  defined  the   term

            "unauthorized"   card.     "Unauthorized"  has   a  different

            statutory  meaning  from  "counterfeit,"   see  18  U.S.C.   
                                                       ___

            1029(e)(2)(3),  and  use   of  an   "unauthorized"  card   is

            criminalized in a  separate subsection  of the law.   See  18
                                                                  ___

            U.S.C.    1029(a)(2).  The  two subsections  carry  different

            maximum penalties, but the crime to which Patti actually pled

            guilty -- conspiracy to commit another offense, see 18 U.S.C.
                                                            ___

              371 --  carries a maximum  five-year penalty regardless  of

            whether the object offense is defined in subsection (a)(1) or

            in subsection (a)(2) of 18 U.S.C.   1029.  

                      The  "totality" of  the  hearing  record,  however,

            reveals no misunderstanding as to the charge.   United States
                                                            _____________

            v. Martinez-Martinez,  69 F.3d  1215, 1222 (1st  Cir.), cert.
               _________________                                    _____

            denied, 116 S. Ct.  1343 (1995).  The  elements of the  crime
            ______

            were reiterated at the  hearing by the government prosecutor,

            whose  offer  of  proof  emphasized that  the  card  fit  the

            definition  of  "counterfeit" because  it had  been altered.2
                                                                        2

            The  definition of a  "counterfeit access  device," expressly

                                
            ____________________

               2The name, account number and bank imprinted on the face
               2
            of  the card did not match the information encoded on the
            card's magnetic stripe. 

                                         -3-

            including  any  component that  is  "counterfeit, fictitious,

            altered,  or forged," was fully set forth in the written plea

            agreement.   Patti  signed the  agreement, and  certified his

            understanding of its terms.  

                      Under oath at the plea  hearing, Patti said that he

            understood the charge, his attorney said that he had reviewed

            each paragraph of  the indictment and the plea agreement with

            Patti, and Patti swore  that he was fully satisfied  with his

            attorney's  representation  and advice.    Any  error in  the

            district  court's  explanation  thus  was  harmless.   United
                                                                   ______

            States v. Buckley, 847  F.2d 991, 1000 n.11 (1st  Cir. 1988),
            ______    _______

            cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1015 (1989); see also United States v.
            ____________                        ________ _____________

            Japa,  994 F.2d 899, 902 (1st Cir.  1993).  Even if, as Patti
            ____

            now   belatedly claims,  he personally  did not  understand a

            legal nuance,  an informed plea based  on competent counsel's

            advice3  is acceptable  in  the circumstances  of this  case.
                  3

            Allard v. Helgemoe, 572  F.2d 1, 6 (1st Cir.),  cert. denied,
            ______    ________                              ____________

            439  U.S. 858 (1978); see  also Nelson v.  Callahan, 721 F.2d
                                  _________ ______     ________

            397, 401 (1st Cir. 1983).  

                      Patti   also  now   claims   that   there  was   an

            insufficient factual  basis for his  plea because he  did not

                                
            ____________________

               3If Patti now wishes to offer extra-record facts to prove
               3
            otherwise, he must initiate a collateral proceeding under 28
            U.S.C.   2255.  Noriega-Millan, -- F.3d --, 1997 WL 151202 *6
                            ______________
            n.3.  We caution, however, that ordinarily a defendant will
            not be heard, even in a collateral proceeding, to controvert
            his own sworn Rule 11 statements.  See United States v. Butt,
                                               ___ _____________    ____
            731 F.2d 75, 80 (1st Cir. 1984).

                                         -4-

            know  that   the  card   specified  in  the   indictment  was

            counterfeit.    The  record  reflects,  however,  that  Patti

            admitted to  the probation  officer that  when he  joined the

            conspiracy he knew its breadth.  He knew it was a "complete,"

            on-going,  "stolen   credit  card   scam,"  replete  with   a

            designated  "fence."  Indeed, six credit  cards, all of which

            were once valid, but subsequently traded, sold, or stolen and

            reprogrammed, were  found in  Patti's rented automobile.   He

            admitted  knowing  that  he had  no  right  to  use the  card

            specified  in the  indictment, and  assumed it  was "stolen."

            The only ignorance  he claimed was of the fact  that the card

            was "all rigmaroled like . . . they say." 

                      True,   a  "conspiracy   to  commit   a  particular

            substantive offense cannot exist  without at least the degree

            of  criminal  intent necessary  for  the  substantive offense

            itself."  Ingram v.  United States, 360 U.S. 672  (1959); see
                      ______     _____________                        ___

            also  Piper, 35 F.3d  at 614  (explaining that  a conspirator
            ____  _____

            must  have  intended  both to  agree  and  to  effectuate the

            commission of the substantive  offense).  We need  not decide

            here,  however,  how  much  technological  knowledge  may  be

            imputed to a conspirator who  has admittedly conspired to use

            an illicit access device. 

                      The hearing  record  reflects a  factual basis  for

            doubting the reliability  of Patti's self-professed ignorance

            that  the  card  was  altered,  and  a  rational  reason  for

                                         -5-

            calculating  that his own interests would be best served by a

            guilty  plea.   See  North Carolina  v.  Alford, 400  U.S. 25
                            ___  ______________      ______

            (1970). An  informed and  calculated plea based  on competent

            counsel's advice about the wisdom of pleading guilty or going

            to trial is all that is required.  Allard, 572 F.2d at 6.    
                                               ______

                      As to Patti's remaining challenges to the sentence:

                      (1)   We  see  no "clear  error"  in  the  district

            court's decision  to  increase Patti's  guideline  sentencing

            range by two levels  for "more than minimal planning,"  under

            USSG     2F1.1(b)(2).   Ample  record  evidence supports  the

            court's  finding that Patti's participation in the conspiracy

            was not a "spur of the moment" crime, but the product of more

            than minimal  planning.  United States v.  Gregorio, 956 F.2d
                                     _____________     ________

            341, 343 (1st  Cir. 1992).  In addition to  Patti's two known

            uses of the counterfeit card on the day he was  arrested, the

            other  five illicit cards were  found concealed in the panels

            of an automobile which he had rented  two weeks earlier.  See
                                                                      ___

            USSG   1B1.1 comment (n.1(f)).

                      (2)  There is also no support for Patti's argument,

            raised for the first time on appeal, that the enhancement for

            "more  than  minimal  planning"  somehow  violated  the  plea

            agreement or Patti's understanding of the plea agreement, and

            required the court  to sua sponte offer  Patti an opportunity
                                   ___ ______

            to withdraw his guilty plea.  

                                         -6-

                      The plea agreement  expressly was  made subject  to

            Fed. R. Crim. P.  11(e)(1)(B), and the Sentencing Guidelines.

            Before  entering his  guilty  plea, Patti  was  unequivocally

            informed  by  the court  that he  would  not be  permitted to

            withdraw the plea except in one  circumstance.  "If I do  not

            accept the [$2,000 fraud loss] stipulation, Mr. Patti, I will

            allow you to withdraw your plea of guilty if you choose to do

            so,  however, you will not  be allowed to  withdraw your plea

            for any other reason; do you understand?"  Patti said that he

            understood.              Accordingly,  the  judgment  of  the

            district court is affirmed.
                              ________

                                         -7-