Court Opinion

ID: 9464508
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 23:35:30.464756+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:38:40.612989
License: Public Domain

HAYS, Senior Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
I dissent.
While language in United States v. Jour-net, 544 F.2d 633, 634 (2d Cir. 1976), indicates establishment of a per se rule,1 subsequent decisions have revealed that not every failure to completely satisfy a requirement of Rule 11(c), Fed.R.Crim.P., mandates that the guilty plea be vacated. United States v. Saft, 558 F.2d 1073 (2d Cir. 1977); United States v. Michaelson, 552 F.2d 472 (2d Cir. 1977). As noted in Saft,
Journet was ... a case of conceded failure to comply with several items of Rule 11(c), and this court’s insistence on explicit and specific information of ‘each and every element enumerated in Rule 11,’ 544 F.2d at 634, must be read in that light.
558 F.2d at 1081.
Here, as recognized by the majority, “the non-compliance ... is limited to failure to advise the appellant” that a maximum special parole term of life could be imposed. (Emphasis added.) Thus, the instant case is distinguishable in that it involves only one of the violations of Rule 11(c) present in Journet Moreover, unlike Journet, here the total possible period of supervision actually imposed was well within the maximum period of supervision of which the appellant had been advised.2
The extreme remedy of vacatur and remand for repleading is especially inappropriate here. The appellant has failed to *1203allege that he was, m any way, prejudiced by the district court’s “limited” non-compliance with Rule 11(c), or that, had he been adequately informed, he would not have pleaded guilty. On the other hand, the appellant has already fully enjoyed the benefit of his plea agreement; as promised, following imposition of sentence by Judge Bramwell, the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York dropped independent charges against appellant.
I would find that United States v. Jour-net, 544 F.2d 633 (2d Cir. 1976), does not require that the guilty plea be vacated in this case. I would affirm the judgment of conviction.

. The court stated that “unless the defendant is specifically informed of each and every element enumerated in Rule 11 the plea must be vacated.” United States v. Journet, 544 F.2d 633, 634 (2d Cir. 1976).

. The maximum possible period of supervision would be calculated on the basis of an individual who violated his special parole term when it was about to expire. As a consequence of the violation, he would incur an additional prison term equal in length to the original special parole term.
Under the sentence imposed — a prison term of 5 years and a special parole term of 5 years — appellant could, at most, be subjected to 15 years of supervision. On the other hand, appellant was advised that his period of supervision could be 21 years — a prison term of 15 years and a special parole term of at least 3 years. It is noteworthy that the maximum possible period of supervision under the actual sentence is equal in length to the prison term that appellant was informed could be imposed.