United States v. William Crain

Case: 15-60146 Document: 00514273808 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/14/2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 15-60146 FILED December 14, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Clerk Plaintiff - Appellee v. WILLIAM BRUCE CRAIN, Defendant - Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi Before WIENER, HIGGINSON, and COSTA, Circuit Judges. WIENER, Circuit Judge: Defendant-Appellant William Bruce Crain pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography and to using interstate facilities to transmit information about minors. Crain’s plea agreement included a waiver of his appeal and collateral-attack rights. He filed a motion to vacate his sentence, which the district court denied after a hearing. He now appeals, arguing that (1) his collateral-attack waiver is invalid, and (2) his attorney was ineffective for failing (a) to object to misstatements by the district court at his Rule 11 plea colloquy, and (b) to advise him about possible special conditions of supervised release. We dismiss Crain’s appeal in part, and affirm the district court in part. Case: 15-60146 Document: 00514273808 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/14/2017 No. 15-60146 I. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS In 2008, Crain was charged with possession of child pornography (Count I) and using interstate facilities to transmit information about minors (Count II), in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252(a)(4)(B) and 2425. In 2009, Crain pleaded guilty to those charges pursuant to a written plea agreement. That agreement contained waivers of his rights (1) to appeal his conviction and sentence “on any ground whatsoever,” and (2) to collaterally attack his conviction and sentence “in any post-conviction proceeding[.]” 1 The plea agreement contained a section describing the maximum potential sentence. It stated, as to Count I, that Crain would receive a term of supervised release of at least three years and up to his lifetime. That statement of the maximum term of supervised release was correct, but the minimum term of supervised release for his offense was actually five years. 2 The plea agreement also specified that if Crain should violate any condition of his supervised release, he could “be returned to prison for the entire term of supervised release[.]” At Crain’s plea hearing, the district judge mistakenly informed Crain that the maximum term of supervised release on Count I was three years. The judge also told Crain that if a defendant violates the conditions of supervised release, the district court would “decide what to do with the person [who violated terms of supervised release]” and that the court “could even send the person back to the penitentiary[.]” When Crain entered his guilty plea, he had already signed his plea agreement. He confirmed at his plea colloquy that he 1 A defendant may waive his right to a proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, just as he may waive his appeal rights. United States v. Wilkes, 20 F.3d 651, 653 (5th Cir. 1994) (per curiam). 2 18 U.S.C. § 3583(k) (2006). 2 Case: 15-60146 ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals