United States v. Andre Williamson

Good Law
504 F. App'x 556
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJanuary 7, 201311-50304California532 words

Opinion

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

Andre Williamson appeals the district court’s judgment of conviction following the denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

The district court erred by not personally advising Williamson on the record of the rights he was relinquishing, and by not making sure that Williamson understood the consequences of his guilty plea. The error was not cured by Williamson’s statement that he had read and understood the plea agreement nor by the prosecutor reading parts of the plea agreement into the record even though those parts contained the admonitions required by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11. Cf. United States v. Ma, 290 F.3d 1002, 1005 (9th Cir.2002); United States v. Kennell, 15 F.3d 134, 136 (9th Cir.1994). Nevertheless, Williamson did not raise this error before the district court, and we find that on this record the error did not amount to plain error. United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55, 74 , 122 S.Ct. 1043 , 152 L.Ed.2d 90 (2002). Williamson does not explain how the district court’s error prejudiced his substantial rights. United States v. Jimenez-Dominguez, 296 F.3d 863, 867 (9th…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.