US v. Robert LeCraft
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 4:10-cr-00021-FL-1. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999225528]. [13-4041]
Appeal: 13-4041
Doc: 59
Filed: 10/24/2013
Pg: 1 of 6
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4041
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
ROBERT LEON LECRAFT,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Louise W. Flanagan,
District Judge. (4:10-cr-00021-FL-1)
Submitted:
October 9, 2013
Decided:
October 24, 2013
Before GREGORY and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Nardine Mary Guirguis, GUIRGUIS LAW, PA, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellant.
Thomas G. Walker, United States
Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States
Attorney, Yvonne V. Watford-McKinney, Assistant United States
Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 13-4041
Doc: 59
Filed: 10/24/2013
Pg: 2 of 6
PER CURIAM:
Robert Leon LeCraft pled guilty to possession of a firearm
by a convicted felon. See 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). Pursuant to Rule
11(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, LeCraft
expressly
conditioned
the
plea
on
his
right
to
appeal
the
district court’s order denying his pretrial suppression motion.
See J.A. 270. The court thereafter sentenced LeCraft to a 180month imprisonment term. In this appeal, LeCraft argues that the
court
erred
by
denying
his
suppression
motion
and
his
pre-
sentencing motion to substitute counsel. Further, he argues that
his ability to pursue the appeal is prejudicially affected by
the unavailability of his Rule 11 plea hearing transcript. 1 For
the reasons set forth below, we vacate the judgment and remand
for further proceedings.
Rule
authorizes
59(b)
of
referral
the
of
Federal
a
Rules
pretrial
of
Criminal
suppression
Procedure
motion
to
a
magistrate judge for a recommendation, and it instructs that a
party who fails to object to such a recommendation waives the
1
Post-sentencing, the parties discovered that a transcript
of the guilty plea hearing is unavailable. In March 2013, we
issued an order remanding the case to the district court for the
limited purpose of settling and approving the record as provided
in Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 10(c). See J.A. 252-53.
After conducting its review, the court adopted in its entirety
the government’s statement concerning the Rule 11 hearing and
adopted LeCraft’s statement in part. See J.A. 264-269.
2
Appeal: 13-4041
Doc: 59
Filed: 10/24/2013
Pg: 3 of 6
right to review. See, e.g., United States v. Midgette, 478 F.3d
616, 621-22 (4th Cir. 2007) (holding that the defendant waived
appellate
review
of
the
denial
of
his
suppression
motion
by
failing to file proper objections to the magistrate’s report). 2
As
we
explained
in
Midgette,
“[t]he
requirement
to
make
objections preserves the district court’s role as the primary
supervisor
of
magistrate
judges,
and
conserves
judicial
resources by training the attention of both the district court
and the court of appeals upon only those issues that remain in
dispute
after
the
magistrate
judge
has
made
findings
and
recommendations.” Id. at 621 (citation omitted).
The district court referred LeCraft’s pretrial suppression
motion to a magistrate judge for an evidentiary hearing. The
magistrate judge conducted the hearing and filed a Memorandum
and Recommendation (“M&R”) in which he recommended denying the
motion. See J.A. 25-137 (hearing transcript), 138-152 (M&R). The
magistrate judge expressly noted in the M&R that either party
had 14 days to file written objections and warned them of the
consequences of failing to do so, see J.A. 151, and the district
clerk of court – citing Rule 59(b) - attached a similar notice
to the M&R, see J.A. 152. Both notices expressly informed the
2
The waiver doctrine also arises from our cases interpreting
28 U.S.C. § 636(b). See Midgette, 478 F.3d at 621.
3
Appeal: 13-4041
Doc: 59
Filed: 10/24/2013
Pg: 4 of 6
parties that a failure to object to the M&R could affect their
ability to appeal a judgment based on the magistrate’s findings
and
recommendation.
LeCraft,
who
was
represented
by
counsel,
failed to file written objections to the M&R within the allotted
time
period.
See
J.A.
153.
Finding
no
clear
error
with
the
recommendations of the magistrate judge, the court adopted the
M&R and denied the motion. See J.A. 153-166.
LeCraft thereafter conditionally pled guilty, reserving the
right
to
appeal
the
order
denying
the
suppression
motion.
Unfortunately, LeCraft’s purported reservation of the right to
appeal the suppression order is illusory because by the time he
entered the conditional plea agreement he had already waived the
right to seek appellate review of that order by failing to file
objections to the M&R.
We faced a circumstance identical to the one presented here
in United States v. Cagle, 314 Fed. Appx. 617 (4th Cir. 2009).
Like
LeCraft,
magistrate’s
Cagle
failed
recommendation
to
that
file
his
objections
suppression
to
the
motion
be
denied, but after the district court adopted the recommendation,
Cagle
entered
suppression
above,
we
a
conditional
order
held
on
that
appeal.
Cagle
guilty
plea
Applying
waived
his
the
and
challenged
waiver
right
to
rule
the
noted
appeal
the
suppression order, and we affirmed the conviction and sentence.
See also United States v. Buckbee, 3 Fed. Appx. 563 (7th Cir.
4
Appeal: 13-4041
Doc: 59
2001) (same).
Filed: 10/24/2013
Pg: 5 of 6
Although not binding, our unpublished disposition
in Cagle suggests that we should decline to consider LeCraft’s
challenge to the suppression order and proceed to consider the
other issues of the appeal.
However, in United States v. Bundy, 392 F.3d 641, 649-50
(4th
Cir.
2004),
conditional
plea
we
based
held
on
that
the
when
a
defendant
mistaken
belief
enters
that
he
a
is
preserving an issue for review that, in fact, is not reviewable
by means of a conditional plea, no valid plea has been entered,
and the proper course is to vacate the judgment and remand the
case to the district court to allow the defendant to either
plead guilty again or proceed to trial. Bundy is not exactly on
point because although the defendant there attempted to preserve
an issue that was improper for conditional plea purposes, he
could nonetheless eventually appeal the issue if he chose on
remand to proceed to trial. Here, LeCraft has already waived the
right to appeal the denial of his pretrial suppression motion by
failing to file objections to the M&R, and he cannot resurrect
his right to seek appellate review of the pretrial suppression
order by proceeding to trial. See United States v. Flores-Duran,
2013
WL
defendant
3286248
who
was
(4th
Cir.
convicted
July
after
5
1,
2013)
trial
(holding
waived
the
that
right
the
to
Appeal: 13-4041
Doc: 59
Filed: 10/24/2013
Pg: 6 of 6
appeal the denial of his pretrial suppression motion by failing
to object to the magistrate’s recommendation). 3
Notwithstanding
this
minor
difference,
we
have
carefully
considered this matter, and we find that the best course under
the circumstances presented is to follow Bundy and vacate the
judgment. LeCraft’s plea is specifically premised on his, the
government’s,
and
the
district
court’s
mistaken
belief
concerning his appellate rights, and it cannot be treated as a
knowing and voluntary unconditional plea. See Bundy, 392 F.3d at
649-50. We
believe
that
a
remand
for
further
proceedings
is
especially appropriate because of the unavailability of, and the
appellate dispute concerning, the Rule 11 transcript. On remand,
LeCraft should be permitted to enter another guilty plea (which
is
not
conditioned
on
his
right
to
appeal
the
pretrial
suppression order) or proceed to trial. 4
VACATED AND REMANDED
3
We note, however, that LeCraft may be able to renew the
suppression issue if he proceeds to trial. See United States v.
Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 678 n.6 (1980).
4
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?