Court Opinion

ID: 9461909
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 22:27:35.910941+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:37:19.141201
License: Public Domain

McCREE, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent. Rule 11 requires the district court, before accepting a plea of nolo contendere, to inquire into a defendant’s understanding of the nature of the charge against him, and this requires an explanation of the basic acts that must be proved in order to establish guilt. United States v. Vallejo, 476 F.2d 667 (3d Cir. 1973), United States v. Cantor, 469 F.2d 435 (3d Cir. 1972). The change-of-plea proceedings quoted in the majority opinion show that the consequences of the plea were explained but the nature of the charge was not. The Supreme Court has said: “There is no adequate substitute for demonstrating in the record at the time the plea is entered the defendant’s understanding of the nature of the charge against him.” McCarthy v. United States, 394 U.S. 459, 470, 89 S.Ct. 1166, 1173, 22 L.Ed.2d 418 (1969) (emphasis in original). McCarthy is mandatory, and, accordingly, I would vacate the judgment of conviction and permit appellant to withdraw his plea.