Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, RICO—11th Cir.: Guilty plea to a conspiracy charge properly accepted, (Mar 5, 2015)

By Dan Selcke, J.D.

The U.S. Court of Appeals in Atlanta affirmed a district court’s conspiracy conviction for defendant Corey Timmons, since the district court had ample evidence suggesting that Timmons was guilty of the charges against him and had sufficiently explained the consequences of his choice to enter a guilty plea before accepting it (United States of America v. Timmons, March 4, 2015, per curiam).

Timmons was charged with a count of conspiracy under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). Specifically, he was alleged to have participated in a scheme involving the purchase and sale of previously stolen electronic goods. At his plea hearing, Timmons, his attorney, and the district court judge spoke about what was included in the plea and the extent to which Timmons would be held responsible for acts of the enterprise which occurred before he became involved. After hearing several different explanations of the elements of the offense and the scope of his culpability, Timmons said that he did not have any more questions and entered a plea of guilty. He was sentenced to 35 months in prison, a period of supervised release, and was directed to pay $68,496.03 in restitution.

Later, Timmons appealed his RICO conviction, arguing that there was not a sufficient factual basis for his guilty plea under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(b)(3). The appellate court could only exercise its discretion to reverse Timmons’ guilty plea if he showed that there had been an error that was plain and affected his substantial rights.

To determine whether there had been plain error, the appellate court considered whether the district court was presented with evidence from which it could reasonably find that Timmons was guilty of the conspiracy charge against him. In this case, there was ample evidence for the district court to have come to this conclusion.

Although Timmons maintained throughout sentencing that he did not know the property in question was stolen, there were many facts that suggested otherwise. For example, Timmons was once paid nearly fifty thousand dollars in cash for a collection of computers in televisions he sold during a meeting in a storage unit parking lot. Immediately afterward, he distributed the money among three of his alleged co-conspirators. Later, when the purchaser call Timmons, he advised her not to talk to law enforcement about the sale. During a different incident, another alleged co-conspirator called Timmons and said that he shipped items that were “on fire” out of the country, and that he never stored inventory at his house to avoid police detection. Once this co-conspirator came under investigation, Timmons offered to stop an incoming shipment of merchandise to him, and he agreed because he couldn’t take “any more damage.”

Substantial rights. Even if Timmons could show that the district court committed error by accepting his plea, he could not show that the error effected his substantial rights. To do that, Timmons would have to show a reasonable probability that, but for the error, he would not have entered the plea. Here, Timmons never claimed that his behavior was innocent, and the plea agreement he signed indicated that his attorney evaluated Timmons’ chance at trial on two counts and ultimately agreed to plead guilty on one instead. Also, Timmons never challenged the plea until the appeal. All of this indicated that, even if error had been committed, it would not have affected Timmons’ decision to enter a guilty plea.

Sufficient explanation. Next, Timmons argued that the district court violated Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(b)(1)(G) by inadequately explaining the charges against him. Again, the appellate court looked for an indication that the district court had committed plain error, and again did not find any. During a conversation about his plea, the district court had detailed the elements of Timmons’ offense, clarified what the offense did and did not include, and ensured that Timmons understood and had no more questions before accepting his guilty plea. This satisfied the requirements of Rule 11(b)(1)(G).

The case is No. 1:12-cr-00240.

Attorneys: Christopher B. Brinson, U.S. Attorney's Office for United States of America. Andrew Greenlee (Andrew B. Greenlee, PA) for Corey Timmons.

Cases: RICO AlabamaNews