Court Opinion

ID: 9482816
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 09:01:35.527939+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:49:13.534493
License: Public Domain

JOHNSON, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
I concur in the panel opinion with the understanding that the harmless error rationale in Rule 11(h) is not a convenient excuse for the district courts to abrogate their responsibility to ascertain that an adequate factual basis exists for the' elements of the offense. The instant case is unusual: while the Presentence Report provides a factual basis for the plea, it cannot be relied upon as the source of the factual basis. In most eases the circumstances will not be so unusual. The purpose of the factual basis requirement in Rule 11(f) is to protect a defendant “who may plead with an understanding of the nature of the charge, but ‘without realizing that [her] conduct does not actually fall within the definition of the crime charged.’ ” United States v. Oberski, 734 F.2d 1030, 1031 (5th Cir.1984) (quoting United States v. Johnson, 546 F.2d 1225, 1226-27 (5th Cir.1977)). If nothing in the record indicates that the defendant realized her conduct fell within the definition of the charged offense, then the absence of an adequate factual basis cannot be harmless error. See United States v. Goldberg, 862 F.2d 101, 106 (6th Cir.1988).