Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 84 views

    Unpublished

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1) The defendant pled guilty to one count of manufacturing child pornography and one count of transporting child pornography. He was sentenced to 600 months (50 years) in prison. 2) On appeal, the sole issue raised by the defendant is that the magistrate judge failed to inform him during the plea colloquy that consecutive sentencing could result in a "life sentence," rendering his plea unknowing and involuntary. 3) The Fourth Circuit affirms the district court's judgment, finding that the magistrate judge complied with all requirements under Rule 11 of informing the defendant of the statutory maximum sentences for each count, and that Rule 11 does not require informing a defendant of the possibility of consecutive sentencing.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    Unpublished

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    84 views5 pages
    1) The defendant pled guilty to one count of manufacturing child pornography and one count of transporting child pornography. He was sentenced to 600 months (50 years) in prison. 2) On appeal, the sole issue raised by the defendant is that the magistrate judge failed to inform him during the plea colloquy that consecutive sentencing could result in a "life sentence," rendering his plea unknowing and involuntary. 3) The Fourth Circuit affirms the district court's judgment, finding that the magistrate judge complied with all requirements under Rule 11 of informing the defendant of the statutory maximum sentences for each count, and that Rule 11 does not require informing a defendant of the possibility of consecutive sentencing.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2011-01-20 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 09-5171

    Original Title

    United States v. Mattocks, 4th Cir. (2011)

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) The defendant pled guilty to one count of manufacturing child pornography and one count of transporting child pornography. He was sentenced to 600 months (50 years) in prison. 2) On appeal, the sole issue raised by the defendant is that the magistrate judge failed to inform him during the plea colloquy that consecutive sentencing could result in a "life sentence," rendering his plea unknowing and involuntary. 3) The Fourth Circuit affirms the district court's judgment, finding that the magistrate judge complied with all requirements under Rule 11 of informing the defendant of the statutory maximum sentences for each count, and that Rule 11 does not require informing a defendant of the possibility of consecutive sentencing.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    84 views5 pages

    Unpublished

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1) The defendant pled guilty to one count of manufacturing child pornography and one count of transporting child pornography. He was sentenced to 600 months (50 years) in prison. 2) On appeal, the sole issue raised by the defendant is that the magistrate judge failed to inform him during the plea colloquy that consecutive sentencing could result in a "life sentence," rendering his plea unknowing and involuntary. 3) The Fourth Circuit affirms the district court's judgment, finding that the magistrate judge complied with all requirements under Rule 11 of informing the defendant of the statutory maximum sentences for each count, and that Rule 11 does not require informing a defendant of the possibility of consecutive sentencing.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    You are on page 1of 5

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 09-5171

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff Appellee,
    v.
    JAMES ELLIS MATTOCKS, JR.,
    Defendant Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at New Bern.
    Louise W. Flanagan,
    Chief District Judge. (4:09-cr-00017-FL-1)

    Submitted:

    December 9, 2010

    Decided:

    January 20, 2011

    Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Jorgelina E. Araneda, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant.


    George E. B. Holding, United States Attorney, Jennifer P. MayParker, Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant United States Attorneys,
    Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    James Ellis Mattocks, Jr., pled guilty pursuant to a
    plea agreement to one count of manufacturing child pornography,
    in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. 2251(a), (d) (West Supp. 2010)
    (manufacturing
    pornography,

    in

    count),

    and

    violation

    of

    transportation
    18

    U.S.C.A.

    of

    child

    2252(a)(1)

    (West Supp. 2010) (transportation count), and was sentenced to


    600 months in prison.
    that

    the

    magistrate

    Mattocks sole assertion on appeal is

    judges

    failure

    to

    inform

    him

    that

    his

    guilty plea could result in a life sentence because of the


    possibility of consecutive sentencing renders his plea unknowing
    and

    involuntary

    process rights. *
    Because

    and

    violates

    his

    equal

    protection

    and

    due

    in

    the

    Finding no error, we affirm.


    Mattocks

    did

    not

    raise

    this

    issue

    district court and did not move to withdraw his guilty plea on
    this basis, we review for plain error.

    See United States v.

    Vonn, 535 U.S. 55, 59 (2002); United States v. Massenburg, 564


    F.3d 337, 342 (4th Cir. 2009) (explaining standard of review for
    unpreserved Rule 11 error).
    must show:

    To establish plain error, Mattocks

    (1) an error was made; (2) the error is plain; and

    In accordance with 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(3) (2006) and United


    States v. Osborne, 345 F.3d 281, 288 (4th Cir. 2003), the record
    establishes that the magistrate judge was properly authorized to
    conduct Mattocks Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing.

    (3) the error affects substantial rights.


    at 342-43.

    Massenburg, 564 F.3d

    To demonstrate impact on his substantial rights,

    Mattocks must show that but for the alleged Rule 11 error, he
    would not have pled guilty.

    See United States v. Martinez, 277

    F.3d 517, 532 (4th Cir. 2002).

    Even if such error is found,

    [t]he decision to correct the error lies within [this courts]


    discretion, and [the court] exercise[s] that discretion only if
    the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public
    reputation of judicial proceedings.

    Massenburg, 564 F.3d at

    343 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).


    The standard for determining whether a guilty plea is
    constitutionally

    valid

    is

    whether

    the

    plea

    represents

    voluntary and intelligent choice among the alternative courses


    of action open to the defendant.

    North Carolina v. Alford,

    400 U.S. 25, 31 (1970); see Burket v. Angelone, 208 F.3d 172,
    190 (4th Cir. 2000).
    examine

    the

    guilty plea.
    the

    Such an evaluation requires the court to

    totality

    of

    the

    circumstances

    Burket, 208 F.3d at 190.

    representations

    he

    made

    in

    the

    surrounding

    the

    A defendant is bound by

    plea

    colloquy,

    unless

    presents clear and convincing evidence to the contrary.

    he
    See

    Walton v. Angelone, 321 F.3d 442, 462 (4th Cir. 2003).


    We hold that Mattocks cannot demonstrate any error,
    plain

    or

    otherwise,

    nor

    has

    he

    established

    that

    his

    constitutional rights were violated, when the magistrate judge


    3

    accepted his plea as knowing and voluntary.

    Mattocks points to

    no authority for the proposition that the magistrate judge erred


    when he

    accepted

    his

    plea

    as

    knowing

    and

    voluntary,

    despite

    failing to notify Mattocks that a consecutive sentence could be


    imposed

    and

    result

    life)

    sentence.

    in

    lengthy

    In

    fact,

    (or

    Rule

    according

    11,

    which

    to

    Mattocks,

    sets

    forth

    the

    information about which a court must inform a criminal defendant


    during the plea colloquy, requires, in relevant part, only that
    the

    court

    defendant

    inform

    the

    understands,

    defendant
    .

    of,

    any

    and

    determine

    maximum

    that

    possible

    the

    penalty,

    including imprisonment, fine, and term of supervised release.


    Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(1)(H).
    The

    record

    amply

    demonstrates

    that

    the

    magistrate

    judge complied with this provision, explicitly advising Mattocks


    multiple times that he faced a statutory maximum sentence of
    thirty years for the manufacturing count and twenty years for
    the transportation count, and specifically questioning Mattocks
    to ensure he understood the sentences he faced.

    Moreover, this

    court has held explicitly that Rule 11 . . . does not require a


    district court to inform the defendant of . . . consecutive
    sentencing.
    Cir.

    2002).

    United States v. General, 278 F.3d 389, 395 (4th


    Although

    Mattocks

    attempts

    to

    distinguish

    this

    courts holding in General because, according to Mattocks, that


    case

    did

    not

    deal[]

    with

    life
    4

    sentence,

    merely

    because

    Mattocks

    fifty-year

    sentence

    may

    result

    in

    him

    being

    incarcerated for the remainder of his life does not render his
    sentence life imprisonment, which carries with it a distinct
    meaning.

    See, e.g., Blacks Law Dictionary 1368 (7th ed. 1999)

    (defining

    life

    sentence

    as

    [a]

    sentence

    that

    imprisons

    the

    convicted criminal for life).


    Accordingly,
    plea

    was

    unknowing

    courts judgment.
    facts

    and

    materials

    legal

    we

    and

    reject

    Mattocks

    involuntary

    and

    argument

    affirm

    that

    the

    his

    district

    We dispense with oral argument because the


    contentions

    before

    the

    court

    are
    and

    adequately
    argument

    presented
    would

    not

    in

    the

    aid

    the

    decisional process.
    AFFIRMED

    You might also like