No. 20-5824

Trenard Caldwell v. United States

Lower Court: Eleventh Circuit
Docketed: 2020-09-28
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Relisted (3)IFP
Tags: criminal-procedure due-process eleventh-circuit fourth-circuit guilty-plea plea-withdrawal rehaif-standard rehaif-v-united-states statutory-interpretation structural-error
Key Terms:
SocialSecurity DueProcess Privacy JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference: 2021-06-17 (distributed 3 times)
Question Presented (from Petition)

Where a defendant pled guilty to a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) prior to Rehaif v. United States, 139 S.Ct. 2191 (2029), and it is undisputed that the plea was neither knowing nor voluntary because he was not told that knowledge-of-status is a crucial element of the offense, is such a plea entered in clear violation of the Due Process Clause reversible error per se, or must a defendant prove that he would not have pled had he been advised of the knowledge-of-status element?

Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether a defendant's guilty plea to a violation of 18 U.S.C. §922(g) is reversible error per se where the plea was neither knowing nor voluntary due to the defendant not being advised that knowledge-of-status is a crucial element of the offense

Docket Entries

2021-06-21
Petition DENIED.
2021-06-14
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/17/2021.
2020-12-23
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/8/2021.
2020-12-07
Rescheduled.
2020-11-25
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/11/2020.
2020-10-30
Memorandum for the United States filed.
2020-10-21
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including October 30, 2020.
2020-10-20
Motion to extend the time to file a response from October 28, 2020 to October 30, 2020, submitted to The Clerk.
2020-09-21
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due October 28, 2020)

Attorneys

United States
Elizabeth B. PrelogarActing Solicitor General, Respondent