U.S. v. Adams ( 1992 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_____________________
No. 91-2408
_____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
CINDY GABBARD ADAMS, a/k/a Cindy Sanchez,
Defendant-Appellant.
___________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
___________________________________________________________
( May 8, 1992)
Before KING, JOHNSON and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
After a guilty plea, the district court convicted defendant
Cindy Gabbard Adams of misprision of a felony in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 4 and sentenced the defendant to a term of imprisonment.
On appeal, Adams complains that the record contains an inadequate
factual basis for her guilty plea. Although we agree that the
district court did not establish a factual basis for Adams's plea
in full compliance with Rule 11(f), we find this failure to be
harmless error. Accordingly, we affirm.
I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
During the 1970s, Ramon Dionicio Martinez, also known as "Jose
Luis Sanchez" and "El Lechero," formed an illegal narcotics
distribution ring in the Rio Grande Valley. Martinez and his
fellow conspirators imported huge quantities of marijuana from
Mexico and distributed the marijuana to dealers across the United
States. From the sale of these illegal drugs, Martinez derived a
large income. He invested much of this income in real estate,
frequently using sham or fraudulent transactions to conceal his
involvement. In December 1986 Martinez purchased a residence in
Edinburg, Texas, with proceeds derived from the sale of illegal
narcotics. Eventually, he transferred the title in the house to
his girlfriend, the defendant Cindy Gabbard Adams.
On May 30, 1990, the Government named Martinez and thirty
other defendants in a ninety-one count indictment charging them
with participation in an illegal narcotics distribution and
racketeering enterprise. Although Adams had not been directly
involved in the distribution ring, she was named in six counts of
the indictment. Adams maintained a plea of "not guilty" to these
charges until December 4, 1990. On that date, the Government filed
a superseding information charging Adams with one count of
misprision of a felony.1 Specifically, the Government alleged that
Adams knew that Martinez had used laundered money to purchase the
Edinburg residence and had failed to report this illegal purchase
to the authorities. In exchange for the Government's promise to
1
See l8 U.S.C. § 4 (l988), which provides:
Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony
cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does
not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or
other person in civil or military authority under the United
States, shall be fined not more than $500 or imprisoned not
more than three years, or both.
2
dismiss the indictment against her, Adams agreed to relinquish her
interest in the Edinburg house and to enter a guilty plea to the
charge in the superseding information.
At her rearraignment, the district court reviewed the terms of
the superseding information with Adams, who related that she
understood the terms of the charge. Adams entered a plea of guilty
to the misprision charge alleged in the superseding information,
and the district court accepted the plea. On April 9, 1991, after
the court received the recommendation of the probation office in
its presentence report, the court sentenced Adams to three years in
prison, but ordered her to serve only the first six months of the
sentence, the remainder suspended for five years.2 Adams filed a
timely notice of appeal.
II. DISCUSSION
A guilty plea is insufficient in itself to support a criminal
conviction. When a defendant enters a guilty plea, Federal Rule of
Criminal Procedure 11(f) requires "a factual basis for the plea."
Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(f). The sentencing court must satisfy itself,
through an inquiry of the defendant or examination of the relevant
materials in the record, that an adequate factual basis exists for
the elements of the offense. United States v. Montoya-Camacho,
644 F.2d 480, 485 (5th Cir. 1981). The factual basis cannot be
implied from the fact that the defendant entered a plea, but must
appear on the face of the record and "must be precise enough and
2
Because the charged offense was alleged to have occurred
before the effective date of the federal sentencing guidelines,
the guidelines did not apply.
3
sufficiently specific" to demonstrate that the accused committed
the charged criminal offense. United States v. Johnson, 546 F.2d
1225, 1226 (5th Cir. 1977).
The record must reveal specific factual allegations supporting
each element of the offense. United States v. Fountain, 777 F.2d
351, 356 (7th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1029 (1986). To
support a conviction for misprision of a felony, therefore, the
record must reveal specific factual allegations regarding the
following three elements: (1) the defendant had knowledge that a
felony was committed; (2) the defendant failed to notify
authorities of the felony; and (3) the defendant took an
affirmative step to conceal the felony. 18 U.S.C. § 4 (1988). See
United States v. Davila, 698 F.2d 715, 717 (5th Cir. 1983).
A. Factual Basis.
Adams contends that there are no facts in the record
establishing the third element of her alleged offense--an
affirmative act of concealment. The misprision statute is directed
against an individual who "conceals and does not as soon as
possible make known...." 18 U.S.C. § 4 (1988) (emphasis added).
Thus, under the misprision statute, the defendant must commit an
affirmative act to prevent discovery of the earlier felony.
"[M]ere failure to make known does not suffice." United States v.
Warters, 885 F.2d 1266, 1275 (5th Cir. 1989). See also Johnson,
546 F.2d at 1227.
The acceptance of a guilty plea is deemed a factual finding
that there is an adequate factual basis for the plea. Davila, 698
F.2d at 717. We review this finding under the clearly erroneous
4
standard. Id. To determine whether the district court erred in
concluding that there was an adequate factual basis for the plea,
we must examine two parts of the record: the information and the
plea hearing.3
The Information. Defendant Adams waived grand jury indictment
and entered a guilty plea to an information charging her with
misprision of a felony. In its entirety, the superseding
information states:
The United States Attorney Charges:
That starting in December of 1986 to about
February of 1987 in the Southern District of Texas and
elsewhere and in the jurisdiction of this court
CINDY GABBARD ADAMS
having knowledge of the commission of a felony by Ramon
Dionicio Martinez, to wit: a violation of the money
laundering statute, 18 USC 1956 (the Peter Street house
purchase), did knowingly and unlawfully conceal and cover
up the same and did not as soon as possible report the same
to a judge or other person in civil or military authority
under the United States.
Record Vol. I, at 438. The Government suggests that this
superseding information is adequate to provide a factual basis for
the guilty plea.
If sufficiently specific, an indictment or information can be
used as the sole source of the factual basis for a guilty plea.
United States v. Bachynsky, 949 F.2d 722, 730 (5th Cir. 1991);
3
In some cases it might also be permissible for the district
court to turn to the Presentence Report to establish an adequate
factual basis, as long as the court indicates on the record that it
relies upon the Presentence Report. See United States v. Graves,
720 F.2d 821, 824 (5th Cir. 1983). The district court in this case
did not indicate on the record that it relied upon the Presentence
Report. See Section B.
5
United States v. Boatright, 588 F.2d 471, 475 (5th Cir. 1979). The
superseding information in this case, however, is not sufficiently
specific. While it states that Adams concealed Ramon Martinez's
violation of the money laundering statute, the information fails to
allege any facts which would indicate that Adams took an
affirmative step to conceal the crime. Cf. Boatright, 588 F.2d at
475 (concluding that an indictment is not adequate to serve as the
factual basis for a plea of guilty to a conspiracy charge when the
indictment "fails to allege any facts tying [the defendant] to the
conspiracy.").
The Plea Hearing. At rearraignment, the district court
engaged in the following colloquy:
ATTORNEY FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Your Honor, as to Cindy
Gabbard Adams, she was the mistress or girlfriend of large
scale drug dealer Ramon Martinez over a period of several
years. As Mr. Martinez generated huge sums of money from his
drug dealing, he invested some of this money in assets that he
placed in names other than his own, and for purposes of this
factual allocution, in real estate. Mr. Martinez was involved
in getting money from drug dealing, buying assets and putting
those assets in names other than his own to hide his own
ownership, control, participation of the assets. In
particular, in the Peter Street address or the Peter Street
asset which is one of the assets we're seeking forfeiture of
in the indictment.
He, Ramon Martinez, and Ms. Adams attended a real estate
auction, a private auction, in December of 1986, and at that
auction Ramon Martinez paid down a down payment of about 10
percent of the purchase of the Peter Street house, total
purchase price of the house was approximately $40,000 and
around $4,000 paid down. Thereafter, in approximately
February of 1987, a check from the Robert Salinas law firm,
funded by Ramon Martinez, was used to pay off the balance of
that property. That property in February of '87 was then
deeded to Ramon Martinez' brother's name, Juan Martinez, and
that is the money laundering violation that is made out by Ms.
Adams' misprison [sic] of that felony.
Further down the line, this property gets transferred to
Ms. Adams. In fact, I believe title to date rests in her
6
name, but the crime here is not that which it occurred at a
later date, but rather the initial purchase by Ramon Martinez
with drug money putting it into someone else's name to hide
his own ownership of it.
THE COURT: All right. Ms. Adams, you've just heard what
Mr. Lewis has explained to me. Is all of that true?
CINDY ADAMS: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: And you were aware of it?
CINDY ADAMS: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: You were aware of all these facts?
CINDY ADAMS: Yes, sir.
ATTORNEY FOR THE GOVERNMENT: And in fact concealed it
and did not make it known to anybody.
THE COURT: And you did not, of course, report it to the
authorities?
CINDY ADAMS: No, sir.
THE COURT: All right. I'm going to accept your plea of
guilty. I find that you are guilty as set out in the
information....
Record Vol. IV, at 54-56. The Government suggests that this
colloquy provides an adequate factual basis for the guilty plea.
According to the Government, the plea hearing demonstrates
that Adams concealed the illegal purchase of the Edinburg house
and, therefore, provides a factual basis for the third element of
the misprision offense. We are not persuaded. The transcript of
the plea hearing does not indicate that Adams admitted an
affirmative act of concealment. Rather, it indicates that the
prosecutor interjected his position that Adams had concealed
Martinez's money laundering violation. The district court did not
ask Adams whether she agreed with this interjection. Even assuming
that she did agree with the prosecutor, the interjection is
7
insufficient as a matter of law to constitute a factual allegation
of affirmative concealment. See Fountain, 777 F.2d at 356. Thus,
the record of the plea hearing also does not provide a factual
basis for the plea.
We conclude that the information available to the court when
it accepted the plea (outlined above from the record) was
inadequate as a matter of law to "satisfy it that there [was] a
factual basis for the plea," as required by 11(f). We must
therefore determine whether the court committed reversible error in
accepting her plea.
B. Harmless Error.
We review a district court's failure to comply with Rule 11
for harmless error under Rule 11(h). The inquiry is whether any
variance from the procedures required by Rule 11 affects the
substantial rights of the defendant. United States v. Bernal, 861
F.2d 434, 436 (5th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 872 (1989);
United States v. Corbett, 742 F.2d 173, 178 & n.14 (5th Cir.
1984).4 This circuit has identified three "core concerns" under
Rule 11: (1) whether the guilty plea was coerced; (2) whether the
defendant understands the nature of the charges; and (3) whether
the defendant understands the consequences of the plea. See United
States v. Shacklett, 921 F.2d 580, 582 (5th Cir. 1991); Bernal, 861
F.2d at 436. When a district court completely fails to address one
of these concerns, the defendant's substantial rights have been
4
Rule 11(h), adopted in 1983, reads: "Any variance from the
procedures required by this rule which does not affect substantial
rights shall be disregarded." See also Corbett, 742 F.2d at 178 n.
14.
8
affected and Rule 11 requires automatic reversal. Bernal, 861 F.2d
at 436; Corbett, 742 F.2d at 178. If the core concerns are met,
however, an "inadequate address" or less than "letter-perfect"
compliance with Rule 115 may be excused under a harmless error
standard. Bernal, 861 F.2d at 436; see also United States v.
Dayton, 604 F.2d 931, 939-40 (5th Cir. 1979) (en banc), cert.
denied, 445 U.S. 904 (1980).
We recognize, of course, that the three core concerns are not
the sole "substantial rights" that Rule 11 protects. As this court
observed in Shacklett, the mere fact that a Rule 11 violation fails
to implicate one of the core concerns does not in itself mean that
the violation is harmless. 921 F.2d at 582. Even then the
question remains whether the violation affects the substantial
rights of the defendant, id.; see also Dayton, 604 F.2d at 940(violations of technical requirements of Rule 11 are subject to
harmless error analysis, but are not always harmless), and the
appellate court must conduct an independent examination of the
effect of the error on the rights of the accused. Shacklett, 921
F.2d at 582.
Many of the cases analyzing a defendant's Rule 11 challenges
to the acceptance of a guilty plea do not distinguish the
5
For example, in United States v. Tuangmaneeratmun, 925 F.2d
797, 804 (5th Cir. 1991), the district court failed to explain
adequately the effect of a term of supervised release prior to
accepting a defendant's guilty plea. Although this constituted an
"inadequate address" of a core concern, we held that it amounted to
harmless error because the defendant did not demonstrate that the
court's failure affected his substantial rights or otherwise
prejudiced him. Id.9
requirements of 11(c)(1) from those of 11(f).6 This is
understandable because the two sections address related concerns.
Section (c) is the textual basis for the second core concern and
requires the court to
address the defendant personally in open court and inform
him of, and determine that he understands, the following:
(1) the nature of the charge to which the plea is
offered. . . .
Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c). This section requires a court to
participate personally in a conversation with the defendant to
determine if he understands the nature of the charges against him.
Shacklett, 921 F.2d at 582. Often in the course of this
questioning, a discussion of the defendant's conduct will occur.
The court may then rely upon this colloquy to satisfy itself that
a sufficient factual basis exists for accepting the guilty plea.
Section (f), on the other hand, does not specifically require
any on-the-record colloquy. It requires that the court
subjectively satisfy itself of an adequate factual basis. See
United States v. Antone, 753 F.2d 1301, 1305 (5th Cir.) (prosecutor
must present evidence to the subjective satisfaction of the
district court which indicates that the defendant actually
committed the offense to which he is pleading guilty), cert.
6
Many of the decisions which do not distinguish between the
requirements of these two sections of Rule 11 were written prior to
the adoption of 11(h). Before that section clarified the
applicability of the harmless error standard to certain Rule 11
violations, there was less reason to be concerned with
distinguishing between a district court's violation of a core
concern and other Rule 11 violations. See, e.g., United States v.
Boatright, 588 F.2d 471 (5th Cir. 1979); United States v. Johnson,
546 F.2d 1225 (5th Cir. 1977).
10
denied, 474 U.S. 818 (1985); see also Bachynsky, 949 F.2d at 730(relying on Antone); United States v. Guichard, 779 F.2d 1139, 1146
(5th Cir. 1985) (same), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1127 (1986). We
observe that courts, looking to the on-the-record colloquy used to
satisfy both Rule 11(c)(1) and Rule 11(f), have produced language
in several cases which seemingly commingles the requirements of
these two sections.7
Nonetheless, section (f) (factual basis) and section (c)(1)
(understanding the nature of the charges) are distinct requirements
of Rule 11. Their similarity does not elevate Rule 11(f) to core
concern status, and accordingly, noncompliance with Rule 11(f) does
not automatically affect a defendant's substantial rights. In the
instant case, after careful review of Adams' arguments, we note
that Adams never contends that the court failed to explain the
nature of the charges as required by Rule 11(c)(1). Likewise, she
makes no argument that the court's failure to establish a factual
basis in violation of Rule 11(f) somehow confused or misled her as
to the nature of the charges against her, thereby implying a
violation of Rule 11(c)(1). Because the court's failure to comply
with Rule 11(f) is not a core concern, and is not suggested by
7
See, e.g., Shacklett, which states:
The district court must therefore personally participate
in the colloquy mandated by Rule 11 in order to assure
itself that the defendant understands what he is
admitting and the consequences of his admissions and that
his admissions constitute the crime charged.
921 F.2d at 582 (emphasis added).
11
Adams to have somehow raised a core concern, we apply the harmless
error standard of Rule 11(h) in reviewing that failure.
The plea hearing record clearly established the first two
elements of the misprision offense, knowledge of a felony and
failure to notify authorities of the felony. Adams stated on the
record that she was aware of and knew to be true the following
facts stated by the Assistant United States Attorney: that
Martinez bought assets to conceal his drug proceeds, that the house
in which she lived was such an asset, and that she did not make
this information known to the authorities. Only the third element,
affirmative concealment, is at issue.
Although the district court failed to discuss with Adams any
specifics with regard to this third element at the time of her plea
hearing, we find that other sources of factual information provide
us with an adequate factual basis of Adams' affirmative concealment
to support her plea. According to Adams' own statements in the
Presentence Report,
Shortly after that I was with him at an auction when he
bought the house on Peters Street in Edinburg. At that
time I believe the house was bought in the name of his
brother, Juan.
At some later date we moved into the house on Peters
Street with Ramon. Eventually the house was transferred
into my name. Ramon had the paper work prepared at the
law offices of Pena, McDonald in Edinburg, and afterwards
I would make payments to Juan, or Ramon would make the
payments for me. The payments were always in cash. . .
.
The plea hearing record establishes that the house was paid off in
February 1987 with a check funded by Martinez and issued by the
Robert Salinas law firm. At that time, title to the house was
12
vested in Juan Martinez. Title was later transferred to Adams. We
can infer from this that Adams made her payments before the house
was "paid off" and while title was vested in Juan. On this record,
therefore, the evidence establishes that Adams made cash payments
to Juan Martinez to "purchase" an asset which she knew had been
purchased by Ramon Martinez in the name of his brother. She also
knew that the house was purchased by Ramon Martinez with drug
proceeds and was being used to conceal those proceeds. The
payments made by Adams constitute an affirmative acts of
concealment of the felony underlying the misprision offense.
We take care to point out that the district court could not
rely on the information within the Presentence Report as a source
of the factual basis for Adams' plea. As this court made clear in
United States v. Graves, 720 F.2d 821, 824 (5th Cir. 1983), "when
a presentence report is relied upon as a source of the factual
basis to establish the crime, this circumstance must appear on the
record, and, where necessary to establish the factual basis, the
presentence report must be part of the record on appeal." See also
Sassoon v. United States, 561 F.2d 1154, 1159 (5th Cir. 1977)
("[T]he factual basis, whatever its source, must appear clearly on
the record."). Here, the district court nowhere stated on the
record that it was relying on the Presentence Report as the source
of the factual basis of Adams' plea. The Presentence Report could
not have served, therefore, as a proper factual basis of the
element of concealment.
We, on the other hand, despite the district court's violation
of Rule 11(f), may consider the information in Adams' Presentence
13
Report in conducting our harmless error analysis. In so doing, we
find that Adams did, in fact, take affirmative steps to conceal
Ramon's unlawful activities. Accordingly, we conclude, upon
examination of the entire record in this case, that the failure of
the district court to establish adequately that a factual basis
existed for Adams' plea did not affect her substantial rights,
because the record as a whole reveals that her actions satisfied
the elements of misprision of a felony in violation of 18 U.S.C. §
4.8 The violation of Rule 11(f) was therefore harmless error.
8
In this regard, the instant case is distinguishable from
United States v. Goldberg, 862 F.2d 101 (6th Cir. 1988). In
Goldberg, the Sixth Circuit found that the district court's failure
to satisfy itself of a factual basis for the defendant's plea to
misprision of a felony was not harmless error. Id. at 106. In
that case, Goldberg, the defendant doctor, was charged with
affirmatively concealing a pharmacist's crime of adding medications
to Goldberg's prescriptions in order to defraud Medicaid. The plea
colloquy failed to elicit any acts taken by Goldberg to conceal the
pharmacist's offense. Based upon the information taken from the
colloquy, the Sixth Circuit noted as follows:
In continuing to write the prescriptions, Dr. Goldberg
did nothing more than provide the opportunity for the
pharmacist to continue with their [sic] fraudulent
conduct, but Dr. Goldberg did not engage in active
concealment from the authorities of the fact that after
the prescription was written the pharmacist added to the
prescriptions. The statement elicited from Dr. Goldberg
is insufficient to establish anything more than Dr.
Goldberg's failure to report on-going criminal conduct.
Id. at 105. The Sixth Circuit recognized that a district court may
look to many sources to determine the existence of a factual basis
of the plea, and is not limited to the colloquy. Id. In that
case, however, the district court made no inquiry of the Government
for supplemental findings, nor did the government offer any. Id.The Goldberg court therefore limited its review to the record of
the plea proceeding. Id. Based upon its finding that the plea
proceeding provided no factual basis for the element of
concealment, the Sixth Circuit found a violation of Rule 11(f), and
held it not to be harmless error. Id. at 106 ("[W]hile the exact
method of producing a factual basis on the record is subject to a
flexible standard of review, the need to have some factual basis
14
AFFIRMED
JOHNSON, Circuit Judge, concurring:
I concur in the panel opinion with the understanding that the
harmless error rationale in Rule 11(h) is not a convenient excuse
for the district courts to abrogate their responsibility to
ascertain that an adequate factual basis exists for the elements of
the offense. The instant case is unusual: while the Presentence
Report provides a factual basis for the plea, it cannot be relied
upon as the source of the factual basis. In most cases the
circumstances will not be so unusual. The purpose of the factual
basis requirement in Rule 11(f) is to protect a defendant "who may
plead with an understanding of the nature of the charge, but
`without realizing that [her] conduct does not actually fall within
the definition of the crime charged.'" United States v. Oberski,
734 F.2d 1030, 1031 (5th Cir. 1984) (quoting United States v.
Johnson, 546 F.2d 1225, 1226-27 (5th Cir. 1977)). If nothing in
the record indicates that the defendant realized her conduct fell
within the definition of the charged offense, then the absence of
will continue to be a rule subject to no exceptions.") (citations
omitted).
Unlike Goldberg, where there was apparently no information
presented to the Sixth Circuit concerning the defendant doctor's
actions but for that offered at the plea proceeding, there was
information available in the instant case that clearly indicates
that Adams took affirmative steps to conceal Martinez' crime.
Goldberg directly raises the issue whether a district court's
failure to establish a factual basis at the plea hearing, in the
absence of other information sources otherwise available to the
court that would support the plea, constitutes harmless error.
That question is not presented by the case at bar, and we need not
address it at this time.
15
an adequate factual basis cannot be harmless error. See United
States v. Goldberg, 862 F.2d 101, 106 (6th Cir. 1988).
16