United States v. Timmreck

Defendant pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute controlled substances. Though he explained the maximum applicable sentence, the district judge violated Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 by failing to describe defendant’s mandatory special parole term. Defendant neither objected nor directly appealed at the time of conviction. Two years after, defendant made a collateral attack pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate the sentence. The Court determined that the district judge’s violation of Rule 11, without more, could not justify a collateral attack. The defendant had not suffered prejudice because the sentence he received was within the maximum range the judge described when he pleaded guilty. The Court cited Hill v. United States, where it rejected a similar challenge to a violation of Rule 32(a). A district court’s failure to ask a defendant if he “has anything to say” amounts to a mere technical violation that may be raised on direct appeal. However, there was no miscarriage of justice or other exceptional circumstances that would warrant the exercise of habeas corpus.

“Such a violation is neither constitutional nor jurisdictional . . . [n]or can any claim reasonably be made that the error here resulted in a ‘complete miscarriage of justice’ or in a proceeding ‘inconsistent with the rudimentary demands of fair procedure.'” p.783-84