Rule 11(c) provides that a district court must assure that the defendant is informed of and understands the nature of the charge, as follows: Therefore, the sole inquiry here is whether the district court's colloquy with defendant Wiggins was adequate under Rule 11(c). 1 Although adopting the plain error standard, this court further held that determining a defendant is informed of and understands the charges is a core objective under Rule 11(c), and failure to do so violates a defendant's substantial rights and constitutes plain error. Quinones, 97 F.3d 473, 475 (11th Cir.1996), this court held that defendants who do not present Rule 11 violations to the district court must show plain error on appeal. This court recently addressed whether a violation of Rule 11 should be reviewed under the harmless error or the plain error standard. at 36-37.) Defendant never objected before the district court but raises the Rule 11 issue on appeal. The court is satisfied that ․ you are competent and capable of entering an informed plea and you have done so, that your plea is supported by an independent and basis in fact that you have admitted that contains all the essential elements of the offense to which you have plead guilty. at 34.)īefore accepting defendant's plea, the district court made a factual finding that defendant Wiggins had entered an informed plea, as follows: at 34.) Thereafter, the court asked the defendant, “Did you in effect rob these three banks?” In response, defendant Wiggins stated unequivocally, “yes, sir.” (R. And I am going to ask you if what she says is correct.Īfter the government's attorney outlined the facts, defendant's attorney advised the court, “as to the material facts constituting the offense I believe that we are in agreement.” (R. Murphy tells me what she contends you did to take by force or violence from the possession of a person or a federally insured bank money of a certain amount. As the court instructed the defendant to listen to the factual basis supporting his plea, the district court referenced the nature of the bank robbery charges as follows: The district court discussed the defendant's potential plea agreement and informed him about the minimum and maximum sentences and the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. Defendant responded “yes, sir.” The court inquired if he understood the charges brought against him. When Wiggins began to run, the armed customer shot him in the leg, resulting in his arrest.ĭuring the change of plea hearing, the district court asked defendant Wiggins if he had reviewed the indictment with his attorney and if they had talked about and studied it. In the last robbery, a bank customer pursued Wiggins and fired a warning shot. On April 20, 1995, defendant Wiggins robbed a bank in Prichard, Alabama on April 24, he robbed a bank in Mobile, Alabama and on May 1, he robbed another bank in Mobile. The district court did not commit plain error and we affirm Wiggins's convictions. Wiggins contends that his plea was not made knowingly and intelligently because the district court failed to inform him of the nature of the charges as required by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c). Atty., Mobile, AL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.ĭefendant Anthony Sheron Wiggins appeals his convictions entered on his guilty plea to three bank robberies in violation of 18 U.S.C. Williams,Carol Elewski, Lynn Hillman, Federal Defender's Office, Mobile, AL, for Defendant-Appellant. No. 95-6972 Decided: December 24, 1997īefore ANDERSON, EDMONDSON and HULL, Circuit Judges.Ĭarlos A. Anthony Sheron WIGGINS, Defendant-Appellant. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. United States Court of Appeals,Eleventh Circuit.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |