United States v. Headrick

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT April 22, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 02-50527
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
DENNIS WAYNE HEADRICK,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. W-01-CR-72-3
--------------------
Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Dennis Wayne Headrick appeals his guilty-plea conviction of
conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine, a violation of 21
U.S.C. § 846. Headrick contends, for the first time on appeal,
that during his rearraignment proceeding the district court
violated FED. R. CRIM. P. 11 in three separate instances.
Because a guilty plea involves the waiver of several
constitutional rights, it must be made intelligently and
voluntarily. Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 242-44 (1969).
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
No. 02-50527
-2-
Rule 11 requires the district court to follow certain procedures
to determine whether a defendant’s guilty plea is made knowingly
and voluntarily. This court reviews the district court's
compliance with Rule 11 to determine (1) whether the court varied
from Rule 11’s procedures and, if so, (2) whether the variance
affected the defendant’s substantial rights. United States
v. Johnson, 1 F.3d 296, 298 (5th Cir. 1993) (en banc).
When an appellant allows an error in a guilty-plea colloquy
to pass without objection, this court reviews for plain error
only. United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55, 122 S. Ct. 1043, 1046
(2002). To establish plain error, an appellant bears the burden
to show that (1) there is an error (2) that is clear or obvious
and (3) that affects his substantial rights. United States
v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 731-37 (1993)).
Headrick contends that the district court failed to explain
the nature of the charge to him, in violation of FED. R. CRIM. P.
11(c)(1). Although the district court did not explicitly explain
the elements of the conspiracy offense to Headrick, the court
asked him whether he had read the indictment or had it read to
him and whether he understood the charges, directed that the
indictment be read to him, and directed that a factual basis for
the offense be recited. These factors indicate that Headrick
understood the nature of the charge. See United States v. Reyna,
130 F.3d 104, 111 (5th Cir. 1997); United States v. Cuevas-
Andrade, 232 F.3d 440, 444 (5th Cir. 2000). Headrick has not
No. 02-50527
-3-
demonstrated that any error with respect to this matter affected
his substantial rights.
Headrick maintains that the district court failed to inform
him of the consequences of his plea when it did not advise him
fully of the effect of supervised release. The cumulative
duration of Headrick’s 18-month prison term, his three-year
supervised-release term, and potential two-year prison term upon
any revocation of supervised release falls far short of the
potential 20-year statutory maximum prison term. Headrick cannot
show that, under this “worst-case scenario,” any Rule 11 error
affected his substantial rights. See United States v. Reyes,
300 F.3d 555, 560 & n.5. Headrick has cited no legal authority
suggesting that the “hypothetical of a never-ending punishment,”
see United States v. Stiefel, 207 F.3d 256, 261 & n.6 (5th Cir.
2000), should be considered in these circumstances.
Headrick argues that the district court erred by failing
to inquire whether his decision to plead guilty resulted from
discussions between the Government’s attorneys and him or his
attorney. See Rule 11(d). The district court’s questions about
whether there was a plea agreement and whether Headrick’s plea
was the result of coercion, threats, or promises suggest that its
failure to inquire specifically about discussions was not a
factor in Headrick’s decision to plead guilty.
The conviction is AFFIRMED.