In federal criminal proceedings, a guilty plea must be entered knowingly, voluntarily, and with an understanding of its consequences. If a defendant later seeks to undo that plea, appellate courts will closely examine the trial record to determine whether proper procedures were followed. Recently, a Florida federal court addressed the validity of guilty pleas in a case where a defendant convicted of firearm possession claimed that his plea was invalid. If you are charged with a firearm offense or are considering a plea, a St. Petersburg criminal defense attorney can help protect your rights and explain the consequences of each decision.
History of the Case
It is reported that the defendant was indicted for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). During the change-of-plea hearing, the defendant pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement negotiated with the government. As part of the plea colloquy under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11, the court informed the defendant of the nature of the charge, the statutory penalties, and the constitutional rights he would waive by entering a guilty plea. The court also confirmed that the defendant had not been coerced into pleading guilty and that he understood the consequences of the plea.
It is alleged that the defendant acknowledged under oath that he had previously been convicted of a felony offense and knowingly possessed the firearm described in the indictment. The court accepted the plea and later sentenced the defendant to a term of imprisonment followed by supervised release. After sentencing, the defendant filed a direct appeal, arguing that the guilty plea was not valid because the court had failed to explain certain aspects of his sentence, including the possibility of supervised release.