United States v. Dominguez Benitez (original) (raw)
United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74 (2004), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that, in a criminal proceeding in federal court, a defendant who does not alert the district court to a possible violation of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure must show on appeal that the violation affirmatively affected his rights in order to obtain reversal of his conviction by guilty plea. Rule 11, which pertains to criminal prosecutions in United States federal courts only, governs the offering of plea bargains to criminal defendants and the procedures district courts must employ to ensure that the defendant knows of and properly waives his trial-related constitutional rights.
| Property | Value |
|---|---|
| dbo:abstract | United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74 (2004), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that, in a criminal proceeding in federal court, a defendant who does not alert the district court to a possible violation of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure must show on appeal that the violation affirmatively affected his rights in order to obtain reversal of his conviction by guilty plea. Rule 11, which pertains to criminal prosecutions in United States federal courts only, governs the offering of plea bargains to criminal defendants and the procedures district courts must employ to ensure that the defendant knows of and properly waives his trial-related constitutional rights. In Benitez, the trial court violated Rule 11 when it took the defendant's plea by failing to warn him that the plea could not be withdrawn if the court did not accept the prosecution's sentencing recommendations. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the conviction, considering that the non-English speaking defendant did not understand his rights under those circumstances. The Supreme Court unanimously reversed, ruling the Court of Appeals had applied the wrong test by not requiring the defendant to show how the error actually prejudiced the proceedings. The Court of Appeals had consequently failed to consider the entire record regarding what the defendant understood. An eight-justice majority of the Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice David Souter, held that a defendant attempting to reverse his conviction due to a Rule 11 violation must show a reasonable probability that, but for the trial court's error, he would not have entered the plea. Justice Antonin Scalia concurred in the judgment but disagreed with the majority's standard. (en) |
| dbo:wikiPageExternalLink | https://supreme.justia.com/us/542/74/case.html https://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2003/2003_03_167/argument/ https://www.oyez.org/cases/2003/03-167 http://www.usdoj.gov/osg/briefs/2003/3mer/2mer/2003-0167.mer.ja.html http://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep542/usrep542074/usrep542074.pdf |
| dbo:wikiPageID | 646513 (xsd:integer) |
| dbo:wikiPageLength | 15143 (xsd:nonNegativeInteger) |
| dbo:wikiPageRevisionID | 994309434 (xsd:integer) |
| dbo:wikiPageWikiLink | dbr:Beyond_a_reasonable_doubt dbr:David_Souter dbr:List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases dbr:List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_542 dbr:Richard_C._Tallman dbr:United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Ninth_Circuit dbr:United_States_District_Court_for_the_Central_District_of_California dbc:United_States_Supreme_Court_cases dbr:Comprehensive_Drug_Abuse_Prevention_and_Control_Act_of_1970 dbr:Grand_jury dbc:United_States_plea_bargaining_case_law dbr:Antonin_Scalia dbr:Stephen_Reinhardt dbr:Federal_Appendix dbr:Federal_Reporter dbr:Federal_Rules_of_Criminal_Procedure dbc:2004_in_United_States_case_law dbr:Public_defender dbr:Remand_(court_procedure) dbc:United_States_Supreme_Court_cases_of_the_Rehnquist_Court dbr:James_R._Browning dbr:Associate_Justice_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States dbr:L._Ed._2d dbr:Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States dbr:Spanish_language dbr:Methamphetamine dbr:Certiorari dbr:Safety_valve_(law) dbr:United_States_Attorney dbr:Plea_bargain dbr:Per_curiam dbr:Alicemarie_H._Stotler dbr:Preponderance_of_the_evidence dbr:U.S._LEXIS dbr:United_States_v._Vonn |
| dbp:arguedate | 0001-04-21 (xsd:gMonthDay) |
| dbp:argueyear | 2004 (xsd:integer) |
| dbp:case | United States v. Dominguez Benitez, (en) |
| dbp:concurrence | Scalia (en) |
| dbp:decidedate | 0001-06-14 (xsd:gMonthDay) |
| dbp:decideyear | 2004 (xsd:integer) |
| dbp:fullname | United States, Petitioner v. Carlos Dominguez Benitez (en) |
| dbp:holding | An untimely objection to the omission of a Rule 11 warning warrants reversal only if there is a reasonable probability that but for the trial court's error, the defendant would not have plead guilty. The reversal of a conviction for a Rule 11 violation without requiring the defendant to show prejudice was accordingly improper. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded. (en) |
| dbp:joinmajority | Rehnquist, Stevens, O'Connor, Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer (en) |
| dbp:justia | https://supreme.justia.com/us/542/74/case.html |
| dbp:lawsapplied | Fed. R. Crim. P. 11; 52 (en) |
| dbp:litigants | United States v. Dominguez Benitez (en) |
| dbp:loc | http://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep542/usrep542074/usrep542074.pdf |
| dbp:majority | Souter (en) |
| dbp:oralargument | https://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2003/2003_03_167/argument/ |
| dbp:oyez | https://www.oyez.org/cases/2003/03-167 |
| dbp:parallelcitations | 172800.0 |
| dbp:prior | 25920.0 |
| dbp:subsequent | 25920.0 |
| dbp:uspage | 74 (xsd:integer) |
| dbp:usvol | 542 (xsd:integer) |
| dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate | dbt:Caselaw_source dbt:Cite_journal dbt:Convert dbt:Infobox_SCOTUS_case dbt:Reflist dbt:Wikisource-inline dbt:Ussc |
| dcterms:subject | dbc:United_States_Supreme_Court_cases dbc:United_States_plea_bargaining_case_law dbc:2004_in_United_States_case_law dbc:United_States_Supreme_Court_cases_of_the_Rehnquist_Court |
| rdf:type | owl:Thing dbo:Case dbo:LegalCase dbo:UnitOfWork wikidata:Q2334719 yago:WikicatUnitedStatesSupremeCourtCases yago:Abstraction100002137 yago:Case107308889 yago:Event100029378 yago:Happening107283608 yago:PsychologicalFeature100023100 yago:YagoPermanentlyLocatedEntity dbo:SupremeCourtOfTheUnitedStatesCase |
| rdfs:comment | United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74 (2004), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that, in a criminal proceeding in federal court, a defendant who does not alert the district court to a possible violation of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure must show on appeal that the violation affirmatively affected his rights in order to obtain reversal of his conviction by guilty plea. Rule 11, which pertains to criminal prosecutions in United States federal courts only, governs the offering of plea bargains to criminal defendants and the procedures district courts must employ to ensure that the defendant knows of and properly waives his trial-related constitutional rights. (en) |
| rdfs:label | United States v. Dominguez Benitez (en) |
| owl:sameAs | freebase:United States v. Dominguez Benitez yago-res:United States v. Dominguez Benitez wikidata:United States v. Dominguez Benitez https://global.dbpedia.org/id/4w9uJ |
| prov:wasDerivedFrom | wikipedia-en:United_States_v._Dominguez_Benitez?oldid=994309434&ns=0 |
| foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf | wikipedia-en:United_States_v._Dominguez_Benitez |
| foaf:name | (en) United States, Petitioner v. Carlos Dominguez Benitez (en) |
| is dbo:wikiPageDisambiguates of | dbr:Benitez |
| is dbo:wikiPageRedirects of | dbr:542_U.S._74 dbr:United_States_v_Dominguez_Benitez dbr:United_States_v._Benitez |
| is dbo:wikiPageWikiLink of | dbr:Benitez dbr:List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases_by_the_Rehnquist_Court dbr:DomÃnguez_(disambiguation) dbr:542_U.S._74 dbr:United_States_v_Dominguez_Benitez dbr:United_States_v._Benitez |
| is foaf:primaryTopic of | wikipedia-en:United_States_v._Dominguez_Benitez |