Court Opinion

ID: 9492572
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 14:44:12.11151+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:55:22.150351
License: Public Domain

FLETCHER, Circuit Judge,
Dissenting:
I respectfully dissent from that part of the majority opinion that holds that although Rule 11(c)(3) was not complied with, the error was harmless under Rule 11(h) because Dawson failed to establish that he was prejudiced by the trial court’s error. Failure to inform a defendant of his right to confrontation and his privilege against self-incrimination is more than “a minor or technical violation of Rule 11.” United States v. Graibe, 946 F.2d 1428, 1433 (9th Cir.1991). The Advisory Committee notes to Rule 11(h) emphasize the limited scope of harmless error analysis for Rule 11 violations. Commenting on the amendment that added (h) to Rule 11, the Committee said “[Subdivision (h) should not be read as supporting extreme or speculative harmless error claims or as, in effect, nullifying important Rule 11 safeguards.” Fed.R.Crim.Pro. 11(h), Notes of the Advisory Committee to the 1983 Amendment. It lists the following three examples as ones that could be harmless:
[First], where the judge’s compliance with subdivision (c)(1) was not absolutely complete, in that some essential element of the crime was not mentioned, but the defendant’s responses clearly indicate his awareness of that element. [Second], where the judge’s compliance with subdivision (c)(2) was erroneous in part in that the judge understated the maximum penalty somewhat, but the penalty actually imposed did not exceed that indicated in the warnings. [Third], where the judge completely failed to comply with subdivision (c)(5), which of course has no bearing on the validity of the plea itself.
Id. Further on it emphasizes a “second cautionary note ... that subdivision (h) should not be read as an invitation to trial judges to take a more casual approach to Rule 11 proceedings.” Id. The error in the case at bar is not the kind of Rule 11 violation which might be found to constitute harmless error under Rule 11(h). That the Supreme Court has held in other contexts that “some constitutional errors do not entitle the defendant to ... habeas relief,” Calderon v. Coleman, 525 U.S. 141, 119 S.Ct. 500, — L.Ed.2d — (1998), is not relevant here where the rule itself clearly delimits the scope of its harmless error provision.
Once the defendant has established a non-technical violation of Rule 11, the burden rests squarely on the government to show the validity of the plea. The government must prove affirmatively that Dawson entered his plea with a complete understanding of the rights he was waiving. See United States v. Cornelius, 999 F.2d 1293, 1294 (8th Cir.1993) (noting that once a defendant demonstrates that a plea taking was not in accordance with Boykin, the government can cure the defect by affirmatively proving the plea was voluntary and intelligent). The burden is not on Dawson to “establish that he was prejudiced in that he was unaware of the conse*1112quences of his plea, and, if properly advised, would not have pleaded guilty.” United States v. Grewal, 825 F.2d 220, 222 (9th Cir.1987), citing United States v. Timmreck, 441 U.S. 780, 784, 99 S.Ct. 2085, 60 L.Ed.2d 634; United States v. Rivera-Ramirez, 715 F.2d 453, 456 (9th Cir.1983). Grewal and the cases cited therein deal with technical violations of Rule 11, and thus are inapplicable to the case at bar where the district court’s violation of Rule 11 affected Dawson’s “substantial rights.”
As for the prejudice analysis, we have held that prejudice inheres in the trial court’s failure to comply with Rule 11. “Prejudice ... is established when lack of understanding in a specific and material respect is sufficiently alleged and such asserted lack, if it existed, would have been disclosed by a proper examination by the trial judge.” Heiden v. United States, 353 F.2d 53 (9th Cir.1965). Such is the case here. We have recognized that Rule 11 is mandatory, Munich v. United States, 337 F.2d 356 (9th Cir.1964) and that “we take the Rule 11 mandate quite literally.” United States v. Roberts, 5 F.3d 365 (9th Cir.1993). Dawson would be prejudiced by now being required “to resort to the relatively uncertain business,” Heiden, 353 F.2d at 55, of proving his state of mind some twenty-two years ago because of a failure of the court, at the time of accepting the plea, to make the necessary ascertainment of understanding of the waiver.
The majority cavalierly disregards Gastelum’s unequivocal holding that claims of noncompliance with Rule 11 must be resolved solely on the basis of the transcript of the proceeding in question. See United States v. Gastelum, 16 F.3d 996, 998-99 (9th Cir.1994), citing United States v. Jaramillo-Suarez, 857 F.2d 1368, 1372-73 (9th Cir.1988); United States v. Kamer, 781 F.2d 1380, 1383 (9th Cir.1986); see also United States v. VanDoren, 182 F.3d 1077, 1082 (9th Cir.1999). The majority states that Gastelum does not “preclude a court’s examination of other factors in making its prejudice inquiry.” But Gastelum understood that there is no need for an analysis of prejudice once it has been determined that Rule 11(c)(3) was violated and the error was not harmless within the meaning of Rule 11(h). Moreover, Parke v. Raley, 506 U.S. 20, 113 S.Ct. 517, 121 L.Ed.2d 391 (1992), relied on by the majority, does not hold that a criminal defendant’s criminal history is a relevant and properly considered factor in the prejudice analysis under Rule 11. The Court in Parke merely deferred to factual determinations by Kentucky courts regarding the knowingness of the waiver of constitutional rights pursuant to a Kentucky statute. See id. at 36, 113 S.Ct. 517. In making that determination, the Kentucky Court of Appeals had looked at, as one of several factors, the terms of the defendant’s prior guilty plea. Id. The Parke court simply agreed to respect the state court’s findings of fact.
I conclude that the government has not met its burden of showing that Dawson knowingly and voluntarily waived his rights. I would hold that Dawson’s 1977 conviction cannot be used for sentencing purposes in this case and would remand to the district court to recalculate the sentence for his 1993 conviction.