Court Opinion

ID: 9493940
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 15:24:03.947527+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:56:07.286476
License: Public Domain

MERRITT, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
I believe that we should issue a certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) establishing our jurisdiction to hear the question of the length of Bryant’s sentence for the reasons set out hereinafter. The transcript in this case at pages 377-79 of the Appendix shows the following colloquy between the Court and the defendant and counsel at the time of defendant’s guilty plea:
MR. SPONG (prosecutor): As a Category No. 4, it puts him in the range of I believe it is 168 to 210 without his acceptance of responsibility. With acceptance of responsibility, it would be 135 to 168 months.
THE COURT: That is your contention, 135 to 168?
MR. SPONG: 168.
THE COURT: What is your position:
MR. WRIGHT: Your Honor, my position is that the guidelines would be 97 to 121.
THE COURT: Do you understand the government contends that the proper guideline for you would be 135 to 168 months for pleading guilty to all these offenses, and your attorney says no, that is not correct, that the proper guideline would be 97 to 121 months? Do you understand that?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Do you understand that right now I don’t know which of those positions I would adopt because I don’t have the record? I will have to wait until I get a full and complete probation report and all of the informa- *655' tion about the case before I make that decision. Do you understand that?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: And understanding that, you still want to go ahead and plead guilty, is that correct?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.
Thus the defendant was clearly informed by the court and by both the prosecutor and defense counsel that the maximum penalty would be 168 months. On the basis of this clear guarantee, he pled guilty. It seems to me elementary that it was plain error to then sentence him to an added three years in jail. If judges think they need an earlier case to rely on before such an obvious mistake can become plain error, then U.S. v. Watley, 987 F.2d 841, 847 (D.C.Cir.1993), ought to suffice. There in an opinion for Judges Wald and Silberman, Judge (now Justice) Ruth Bad-er Ginsburg said:
In short, Watley, through no fault on his part, was given incorrect information, at and prior to the plea hearing, regarding the sentence he could possibly receive.... No mere personal wish, hope or expectation, Watley’s settled mind that his sentence would likely fall below ten years was a virtual condition of his plea. His misunderstanding was shared and reinforced by prosecutor, defense counsel, and — most tellingly — the district judge, who emphasized the importance of Watley’s expectation by nailing down exactly the sentence Watley had “in mind”.... We therefore find securely placed Watley’s argument that, assigning proper weight to the “volun-tariness” requirement of Rule 11(d), he had a “fair and just reason,” within the compass of Rule 32(d), to withdraw his plea.
In light of the misinformation given Bryant here, plain common sense, the need for courts to provide truthful information and this case authority, Bryant should be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea.