Page:United States Reports, Volume 542.djvu/123

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
84
UNITED STATES v. DOMINGUEZ BENITEZ

Opinion of the Court

C

What we have already said points to why the test applied by the Court of Appeals in this case fell short. Its first element was whether the error was "minor or technical," 310 F.3d, at 1225, a phrase it took from United States v. Graibe, 946 F.2d 1428 (CA9 1991), which in turn found it in the 1983 commentary that accompanied the amendment to Rule 11(h). 946 F.2d, at 1433. But this element requires no examination of the effect of the omitted warning on a defendant's decision, a failing repeated to a significant extent by the second element of the Ninth Circuit's test, taken from United States v. Minore, 292 F.3d 1109 (CA9 2002), which asks whether the defendant understood "the rights at issue when he entered his guilty plea." 310 F. 3d, at 1225. True, this enquiry gets closer than the first to a consideration of the likely effect of Rule 11 error on the defendant's decision to plead; assessing a claim that an error affected a defendant's decision to plead guilty must take into account any indication that the omission of a Rule 11 warning misled him. But the standard of the Court of Appeals does not allow consideration of any record evidence tending to show that a misunderstanding was inconsequential to a defendant's decision, or evidence indicating the relative significance of other facts that may have borne on his choice regardless of any Rule 11 error.[1]

Relevant evidence that the Court of Appeals thus passed over in this case included Dominguez’s statement to the District Court that he did not intend to go to trial, and his coun-


  1. This is another point of contrast with the constitutional question whether a defendant's guilty plea was knowing and voluntary. We have held, for example, that when the record of a criminal conviction obtained by guilty plea contains no evidence that a defendant knew of the rights he was putatively waiving, the conviction must be reversed. Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 243 (1969). We do not suggest that such a conviction could be saved even by overwhelming evidence that the defendant would have pleaded guilty regardless.