Court Opinion

ID: 9495577
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 16:06:19.647649+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:57:06.079609
License: Public Domain

ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent because it is my view that the district court abused its discretion by miseharacterizing the record in explaining its reasons for rejecting Kelly’s guilty pleas. First, the judge explained that she gave Kelly “lots of opportunities” to plead guilty, but Kelly attempted only once to plead guilty to the distribution counts. During that attempt, Kelly did not refuse to plead guilty as the judge indicated at sentencing. Instead, when asked whether he was agreeable to pleading guilty, Kelly quite clearly responded, “yes.” See United States v. Maddox, 48 F.3d 555, 560 (D.C.Cir.1995) (district court abused its discretion in rejecting guilty plea based solely on defendant’s denial of factual guilt during previous plea colloquy). Cf. Neal v. Grammer, 975 F.2d 463, 466 (8th Cir.1992) (affirming guilty plea because even though defendant initially denied factual guilt, he later admitted guilt). Kelly’s only hesitation was that he believed that he needed more time to review the distribution charges with his attorney- — a reasonable request because the plea agreement had changed overnight and because Kelly had been brought before the judge early that morning with little time to discuss the new agreement with his attorney. Moreover, it was unlikely that Kelly would balk at pleading guilty to the distribution counts because he had already admitted to the underlying conduct, and the judge herself suggested that pleas to those counts might be less “problematic.”
The district court also mischaracterized the record when explaining that it rejected the pleas because the government had already rested. The government had not *332yet rested when Kelly began the plea colloquy on the distribution counts, and had the court not ignored counsel’s request to continue their “conversation,” Kelly could have entered his pleas before the government rested. Granted, very little remained in the government’s case when Kelly began his colloquy, but the judge’s remark that Kelly should “discuss this further in the lockup” suggested that the timing of the pleas was not a problem and that Kelly could continue the colloquy after the judge’s motion call. Thus, because the judge’s reasons for rejecting Kelly’s pleas were based on mischaracterizations of the record, I do not believe that they were sufficiently sound. See United States v. Kraus, 137 F.3d 447, 453 (7th Cir.1998).
The government argues that any conceivable error in rejecting the guilty pleas must be deemed harmless because Kelly’s only tangible benefit of pleading guilty would be the prospect of an offense-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility, and such a prospect was slim at best. The government also argues that a reversal would be “pointless” as Kelly already received a fair trial. Those arguments miss the mark. First, the possibility of a reduced sentence based on acceptance of responsibility constitutes sufficient prejudice to Kelly. See United States v. Shepherd, 102 F.3d 558, 563 (D.C.Cir.1997). And even if such prejudice is not sufficient, an additional conviction is clearly prejudicial. Ball v. United States, 470 U.S. 856, 865, 105 S.Ct. 1668, 84 L.Ed.2d 740 (1985); Shepherd, 102 F.3d at 563; Maddox, 48 F.3d at 560; United States v. Delegal, 678 F.2d 47, 52 (7th Cir.1982). The government’s other argument is circular- — Kelly is not complaining that his trial was unfair; he is complaining that he incurred an additional conviction because he was not permitted to plead guilty.
Thus, because the district court abused its discretion in rejecting Kelly’s guilty pleas and because Kelly was prejudiced by the rejection, I would remand the case with instructions to permit Kelly to plead guilty and to vacate the jury verdicts.