United States v. Belle

Court of Appeals for the First Circuit·Decided January 29, 1997·No. 95-2182·Published

Opinion

USCA1 Opinion

[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

____________________

No. 95-2182

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Appellee,

v.

CAMILLE BELLE,

Defendant, Appellant.

____________________

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

[Hon. Edward F. Harrington, U.S. District Judge] ___________________

____________________

Before

Stahl, Circuit Judge, _____________

Aldrich and Campbell, Senior Circuit Judges. _____________________

____________________

Chris H. Mangos for appellant. _______________
Camille Belle on supplemental brief pro se. _____________ ___ __
Geoffrey E. Hobart, Assistant United States Attorney, with whom ___________________
Donald K. Stern, United States Attorney, was on brief for appellee. _______________

____________________

JANUARY 24, 1997
____________________

ALDRICH, Senior Circuit Judge. The record in this ____________________

case calls for our writing something of a primer on

acceptance-of-plea hearings. First, the background. Camille

Belle (Belle), together with her husband and son, were

arrested on a criminal complaint in February 1994. By a

superseding indictment in June 1994 she was charged, inter _____

alia, with various drug offenses, including conspiracy from ____

1987 to the date of arrest. In January 1995 she retained new

counsel, and her (separate) trial date was set for May 22.

On the morning of that day Belle told the court she wished to

plead. A plea agreement was drawn, and, after a hearing, her

plea to six of the eight counts of the indictment was

accepted.

On September 7, 1995 a Presentence Report (PSR) was

released, with objections due by September 21. On September

19, supported by a one page affidavit of counsel, Belle moved

for leave to vacate her plea, and for a competency

evaluation. These motions were denied the following day.

Thereafter she filed objections to the PSR. A sentencing

hearing was held on September 28. After, in a two hour

address, Belle had informed the court of her views as to how

the agents had treated her during the "reverse sting"

operations that had led to her indictment, she was sentenced

to a minimum-mandatory term of ten years. She appeals.

-2-

Belle's primary complaint is that her Rule 11 plea

hearing was inadequate. Of present relevance the following

occurred (numerals ours).

THE COURT: [1] Are you presently under a
doctor's care?

BELLE: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: [2] What did she say?

THE CLERK: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: [3] Does the illness that you're
being treated for affect your
ability to understand the nature of
these proceedings?

BELLE: No.

THE COURT: [4] Have you taken any medicine or
pills or drugs today?

BELLE: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: [5] Is the ingestion of any of
those items, medicines or pills or
drugs, does it affect your ability
to understand the nature of these
proceedings?

BELLE: No.

THE COURT: [6] Have you ever been under
psychiatric care?

BELLE: No, your Honor.

THE COURT: [7] Counsel, do you know any
reason why the Court should not
accept the plea of guilty?

MR. BALLIRO: I do not, your Honor.

THE COURT: [8] Have you had sufficient time
to discuss this matter fully with
your attorney?

-3-

BELLE: Yes.

THE COURT: [9] Are you satisfied with his
representation of you?

BELLE: Yes.

After this exchange, the court found that "the plea of guilty

has been knowledgeably offered with an understanding of its

possible consequences."

In United States v. Parra-Ibanez, 936 F.2d 588, ______________ ____________

594-95 (1st Cir. 1991), after recognizing that the

voluntariness of the plea is a core requirement of Fed. R.

Crim. P. 11, we quoted with approval from United States v. _____________

Cole, 813 F.2d 43, 46 (3d Cir. 1987) that once the court "has ____

been informed that the defendant has recently ingested drugs

or other substances capable of impairing his ability to make

a knowing and intelligent waiver of his constitutional

rights," this subject must be pursued. We repeated this

admonishment in Carey v.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

USCA1 Opinion




[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]


UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS



                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT



                                 ____________________



        No. 95-2182



                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,



                                      Appellee,



                                          v.



                                    CAMILLE BELLE,



                                Defendant, Appellant.



                                 ____________________


APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS



                   [Hon. Edward F. Harrington, U.S. District Judge]
                                               ___________________



                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                                 Stahl, Circuit Judge,
                                        _____________



                     Aldrich and Campbell, Senior Circuit Judges.
                                           _____________________



                                 ____________________


Chris H. Mangos for appellant.
            _______________

            Camille Belle on supplemental brief pro se.
            _____________                       ___ __

            Geoffrey E.  Hobart, Assistant United  States Attorney, with  whom
            ___________________

        Donald K. Stern, United States Attorney, was on brief for appellee.
        _______________



                                 ____________________



                                   JANUARY 24, 1997

                                 ____________________



ALDRICH, Senior Circuit Judge.   The record in this
                               ____________________



            case   calls  for  our  writing  something  of  a  primer  on



            acceptance-of-plea hearings.  First, the background.  Camille



            Belle  (Belle),  together  with  her husband  and  son,  were



            arrested  on a  criminal complaint  in February  1994.   By a



            superseding indictment  in June  1994 she was  charged, inter
                                                                    _____



            alia, with  various drug offenses, including  conspiracy from
            ____



            1987 to the date of arrest.  In January 1995 she retained new



            counsel,  and her (separate) trial  date was set  for May 22.



            On the morning of that day Belle told the court she wished to



            plead.  A plea agreement was drawn, and, after a hearing, her



            plea  to  six  of the  eight  counts  of  the indictment  was



            accepted.



                      On September 7, 1995 a Presentence Report (PSR) was



            released, with objections due by September 21.   On September



            19, supported by a one page affidavit of counsel, Belle moved



            for  leave  to  vacate  her   plea,  and  for  a   competency



            evaluation.   These  motions were  denied the  following day.



            Thereafter she filed  objections to  the PSR.   A  sentencing



            hearing was  held  on September  28.   After, in  a two  hour



            address,  Belle had informed the court of her views as to how



            the  agents  had  treated  her  during  the  "reverse  sting"



            operations that had led to  her indictment, she was sentenced



            to a minimum-mandatory term of ten years.  She appeals.


-2-



Belle's primary complaint is  that her Rule 11 plea



            hearing was  inadequate.  Of present  relevance the following



            occurred (numerals ours).



                      THE COURT:      [1]   Are  you  presently  under  a

                                      doctor's care?



                      BELLE:          Yes, your Honor.



                      THE COURT:      [2]  What did she say?



                      THE CLERK:      Yes, your Honor.



                      THE COURT:      [3]  Does  the illness that  you're

                                      being   treated  for   affect  your

                                      ability to understand the nature of

                                      these proceedings?



                      BELLE:          No.



                      THE COURT:      [4]  Have you taken any medicine or

                                      pills or drugs today?



                      BELLE:          Yes, your Honor.



                      THE COURT:      [5]   Is the  ingestion  of any  of

                                      those items, medicines or  pills or

                                      drugs, does it affect  your ability

                                      to understand the  nature of  these

                                      proceedings?



                      BELLE:          No.



                      THE COURT:      [6]    Have  you  ever  been  under

                                      psychiatric care?



                      BELLE:          No, your Honor.



                      THE COURT:      [7]    Counsel,  do  you  know  any

                                      reason  why  the  Court should  not

                                      accept the plea of guilty?



                      MR. BALLIRO:    I do not, your Honor.



                      THE COURT:      [8]   Have you had  sufficient time

                                      to discuss this  matter fully  with

                                      your attorney?


-3-



BELLE:          Yes.



                      THE COURT:      [9]   Are  you satisfied  with  his

                                      representation of you?



                      BELLE:          Yes.



            After this exchange, the court found that "the plea of guilty



            has been  knowledgeably offered with an  understanding of its



            possible consequences."



                      In United  States v.  Parra-Ibanez,  936 F.2d  588,
                         ______________     ____________



            594-95   (1st  Cir.   1991),  after   recognizing   that  the



            voluntariness  of the plea is  a core requirement  of Fed. R.



            Crim.  P. 11, we quoted  with approval from  United States v.
                                                         _____________



            Cole, 813 F.2d 43, 46 (3d Cir. 1987) that once the court "has
            ____



            been informed that the  defendant has recently ingested drugs



            or other  substances capable of impairing his ability to make



            a  knowing  and  intelligent  waiver  of  his  constitutional



            rights,"  this subject  must be  pursued.   We  repeated this



            admonishment in  Carey v. United  States, 50 F.2d  1097, 1099
                             _____    ______________



            (1st Cir.  1995).  Even without these  authorities this would



            seem manifest.



                      We  cannot understand how,  having been informed by



            the affirmative  answer to  question 4,  that Belle may  have



            just ingested  drugs,  the court  would  not have  asked  the



            obvious.  Her opinion, 5, and  that of her counsel, 7, to the



            effect that some, unidentified,  substance had not interfered



            with her mental abilities,  was, at best, secondary evidence.



            It  is not  to be  forgotten that  defendant and  counsel are


-4-



concerned parties who  want the plea  accepted.  Their  views



            are important, and  we certainly do not, at  least initially,



            (see post),  question the  good faith  or general  ability of
                 ____



            counsel,  but  the purpose  of a  plea  hearing is  to obtain



            impartial findings  upon available basic  facts.  We  are not



            persuaded by a discomforted  government's argument that these



            opinions  excused  the  court  "from  engaging  Belle  in  an



            extended colloquy  about her various ailments."   Rather, the



            court's inquiry was conspicuously deficient.



                      This  conclusion  may  not  of  itself  warrant the



            withdrawal of  the plea.  Apart  from the red flag  answer to



            question 4 the record as a whole  fully warranted the court's



            conclusion that the plea was voluntary.  Can we then conclude



            from  the  record as  a whole  that  this error  was harmless



            (e.g., the PSR)?  See Carey, 50 F.3d at 1099.  Here, however,
                              ___ _____



            we  run  into a  singular  situation.   According  to Belle's



            counsel, on May 22 when her plea  was accepted (and after his



            being with her for  some time), there  was no reason why  her



            plea should not  be accepted.   (Question 7).   According  to



            this same counsel,  by his September affidavit in  support of



            her motion to withdraw her plea, on May 22 she was "confused,



            disoriented and lacking in comprehension as to the effect  of



            her agreement to plead guilty."



                      While this affidavit may raise serious questions as



            to  counsel,  it  surely   weakens  the  reliability  of  his


-5-



statement to the court as to defendant's state of mind on May



            22.    This, together  with the  court's  failure to  ask the



            obvious question  after 4, prevents us  from determining that



            the Rule 11 error was harmless.



                      As  we did  in Parra-Ibanez,  936 F.2d  at 598,  we
                                     ____________



            remand to the district court for an evidentiary  hearing, its



            findings and recommendations  to be forwarded to the clerk of



            this court.    This hearing  should include  findings on  the



            companion matters sought to  be raised before us, ante.   Our
                                                              ____



            jurisdiction to continue.


-6-

United States v. Belle, (1st Cir. 1997).

Pincite

United States v. Belle (United States v. Belle) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

United States v. Cole, Reginald. Appeal of Reginald Cole

813 F.2d 43 (Third Circuit, 1987)

United States v. Francisco J. Parra-Ibanez

936 F.2d 588 (First Circuit, 1991)

Opinion

Related