United States v. Deljuan Prettyman

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-15809 July 21, 2005
Non-Argument Calendar THOMAS K. KAHN
CLERK
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 04-00063-CR-P-NE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
DELJUAN PRETTYMAN,
Defendant-Appellant.
__________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Alabama
________________________
(July 21, 2005)
Before ANDERSON, BARKETT and WILSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Deljuan Prettyman appeals his convictions for conspiracy to distribute and
to possess with intent to distribute crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846
(Count 1), and distribution and possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine
in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A)(iii), and (b)(1)(C) (Counts 3,4,
and 5). On appeal, Prettyman argues that the district court failed to comply with
Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (b)(1)(H) and (b)(1)(I) by not properly informing him of the
mandatory minimum penalty or possible maximum penalty for each count of the
indictment. Prettyman specifically contends that, during the plea colloquy, the
court did not fully address the impact that the 21 U.S.C. § 851 enhancement filed
by the government would have on his minimum and maximum penalties.
Prettyman asserts that the court did not know to which counts the § 851
enhancement applied and did not inform him of the maximum and mandatory
minimum penalties that he was facing under each count. Moreover, Prettyman
contends, the district court incorrectly informed him regarding the maximum
possible penalty that he was facing should the § 851 enhancement apply to Counts
4 and 5 of the indictment. Thus, because the court failed to advise him of the
direct consequences of his plea, Prettyman argues, his plea was not made
knowingly and intelligently.
We review “the issue of a Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 violation for plain error when
it was not raised before the district court.” United States v. James, 210 F.3d 1342,
1343 (11th Cir. 2000). “Under plain-error review, the defendant has the burden to
2
show that there is (1) error (2) that is plain and (3) that affects substantial rights.
If all three conditions are met, an appellate court may then exercise its discretion
to notice a forfeited error, but only if (4) the error seriously affects the fairness,
integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” United States v. Monroe,
353 F.3d 1346, 1349 (11th Cir. 2003) (internal citations and quotations omitted).
The “reviewing court may consult the whole record when considering the effect of
any error on substantial rights.” United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55, 59, 122 S. Ct.
1043, 1046 (2002).
Rule 11 requires that, before the court accepts a plea of guilty, it must
address the defendant personally in open court and determine that the defendant
understands any maximum possible penalty, including imprisonment, fine and
term of supervised release, as well as any mandatory minimum penalty. Fed. R.
Crim. P. 11(b)(1)(H), (I) (2005). A court accepting a guilty plea must comply with
Rule 11, and, in particular, address three “core concerns” by ensuring that: (1) the
guilty plea is voluntary; (2) the defendant understands the nature of the charges;
and (3) the defendant understands the consequences of his guilty plea. United
States v. Siegel, 102 F.3d 477, 481 (11th Cir. 1996). However, we have “upheld
plea colloquies that fail to address an item expressly required by Rule 11 so long
3
as the overall plea colloquy adequately addresses these three core concerns.”
Monroe, 353 F.3d at 1354.
We find that Prettyman has failed to carry his burden of showing that the
district court plainly erred. The district court informed Prettyman (1) as to the
maximum and minimum penalties pertaining to each count of the indictment, (2)
that the government filed a § 851 enhancement, and (3) that, if the enhancement
applied, then the maximum sentence would increase to 20 years to life. Thus,
overall, the district court’s plea colloquy complied with Rule 11 and addressed
the core concerns as stated in Monroe. See 353 F.3d at 1354.
Because Prettyman has failed to carry his burden, the district court
committed no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s ruling.
AFFIRMED.
4