United States v. Darrell Varner

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 15a0081n.06
Case No. 14-5475 FILED
Jan 27, 2015
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
)
Plaintiff-Appellee, )
) ON APPEAL FROM THE
v. ) UNITED STATES DISTRICT
) COURT FOR THE WESTERN
DARRELL VARNER, ) DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
)
Defendant-Appellant. )
)
)
OPINION
BEFORE: BOGGS and McKEAGUE, Circuit Judges; PEARSON, District Judge.*
McKEAGUE, Circuit Judge. Darrell Varner challenges his plea agreement, claiming
that it is invalid because he was not aware at the time of his plea of dashboard-camera footage
that was the basis for a six-level sentencing enhancement. He also brings an ineffective-
assistance-of-counsel claim. We affirm.
On the morning of March 13, 2013, Varner and his codefendant, Joseph Fuller,
unsuccessfully attempted to rob a T-Mobile store in Memphis. Later that same day, they
successfully robbed a different T-Mobile store before leading authorities on a multi-state, high-
*
The Honorable Benita Y. Pearson, United States District Judge for the Northern District of
Ohio, sitting by designation.
Case No. 14-5475
U.S. v. Varner
speed car chase. At some point during the chase, defendants abruptly changed lanes and drove
towards an officer who was deploying a spike strip on the side of the road. The officer moved to
avoid being hit. Varner and Fuller were detained soon after.
The two were charged with one count of aiding and abetting attempted robbery and one
count of aiding and abetting robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 and 1951; and two counts of
using and carrying a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence, in violation of
18 U.S.C. § 924(c). Varner pleaded guilty to both robbery counts and to one of the two firearm
counts. The agreement set forth the minimum and maximum statutory penalties for each charge.
It also contained an appeal-waiver provision under which Varner agreed not to appeal a sentence
within the statutory range except for prosecutorial misconduct and ineffective assistance of
counsel.
The district court held a change of plea hearing where the government read the terms of
the plea agreement and provided a factual basis for the plea. Varner acknowledged that the facts
were true as read and admitted his guilt. Varner also acknowledged that he was aware of the
rights he was giving up and that he understood the appeal waiver. The court then explained the
sentencing Guidelines and advised Varner that he could be sentenced above or below the
advisory Guidelines range.
The Pre-Sentence Report (“PSR”) calculated an offense level of 34 and a Guidelines
range of 168 to 210 months, which included a six-level enhancement under U.S.S.G.
§ 3A1.2(c)(1) because the fleeing car almost hit a law enforcement officer. After receiving the
PSR, the government shared with Varner’s counsel the video documenting the relevant portion
of the car chase. The government had not been aware of this video until Fuller’s sentencing
-2-
Case No. 14-5475
U.S. v. Varner
hearing, three months after his change of plea. Varner objected to that enhancement because, he
argued, he did not know at the time of his plea that this video existed.
At the sentencing hearing, the district court overruled Varner’s objection and applied the
six-level enhancement, resulting in a Guidelines range of 121 to 151 months for the robbery
counts and a mandatory minimum of 60 months to be served consecutively for the firearms
count. Varner was sentenced to concurrent 121-month terms for the robbery charges and 60
months for the firearms charge, to run consecutively. Varner now argues that his counsel’s lack
of knowledge of this video constituted ineffective assistance. In addition, he claims that the plea
agreement was not entered into knowingly and intelligently because he could not understand the
full consequences of the guilty plea without knowledge of the video.
For the ineffective-assistance claim, Varner argues that his counsel could not properly
advise him of the consequences of pleading guilty without knowledge of the video. In general,
we do not review ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims on direct appeal because “there has
not been an opportunity to develop and include in the record evidence bearing on the merits of
the allegations.” United States v. Franco, 484 F.3d 347, 354–55 (6th Cir. 2007) (internal
quotation marks and citations omitted). A well-developed factual record is vital to whether
prejudice can be shown. Id.; see also United States v. Aguwa, 123 F.3d 418, 423 (6th Cir. 1997).
Defendants may instead bring these claims collaterally under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which the appeal
waiver in Varner’s plea agreement contemplates. There is no reason to depart from the general
rule here. Because the record before us has not been adequately developed to make a
determination, we abstain from ruling on this issue.
Varner also argues that his plea was not knowing and intelligent, as it must be to be valid.
United States v Dixon, 479 F.3d 431, 434 (6th Cir. 2007) (citing Brady v. United States, 397 U.S.
-3-
Case No. 14-5475
U.S. v. Varner
742, 748 (1970)). The district court must verify that the defendant understands the “‘applicable
constitutional rights, the nature of the crime charged, the consequences of the guilty plea, and the
factual basis for concluding that the defendant committed the crime charged.’” Id. at 434
(quoting United States v. Webb, 403 F.3d 373, 378–79 (6th Cir. 2005)); see also Fed. R. Crim. P.
11. We review de novo whether a guilty plea was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent. Dixon,
479 F.3d at 434. The factual bases relied upon by the court below are reviewed for clear error.
Id.
Varner’s plea meets these requirements. A defendant knowingly and intelligently enters
a plea when he understands, among other things, the maximum sentence he may receive at
sentencing. See United States v. Stephens, 906 F.2d 251, 253–54 (6th Cir. 1990); United States
v. Meeks, 290 F. App’x 896, 905 (6th Cir. 2008). The plea agreement correctly listed the
statutory range of penalties and there is no indication that Varner was not aware of the nature of
the charge to which he pleaded or of the consequences of his plea. See Brady, 397 U.S. at 448;
Pickens v. Howes, 549 F.3d 377, 380 (6th Cir. 2008). Varner explicitly acknowledged that he
was aware of that sentencing range, and there were no “‘affirmative misstatements of the
maximum possible sentence.’” Dixon, 479 F.3d at 435 (quoting Pitts v. United States, 763 F.2d
197, 201 (6th Cir. 1985)). It does not matter, therefore, that he may not have been aware of
certain evidence that would support a sentencing enhancement.
Because Varner knowingly and intelligently entered the plea, the plea agreement is valid
and he has waived his right to appeal this sentence, which is within the statutory range. We will
not consider his ineffective assistance claim on direct review. For these reasons, we affirm.
-4-