United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit
Criminal Procedure — plea withdrawal
A district court is not required to inform a defendant entering a guilty plea that the sentence may be imposed consecutive to another sentence.
“[T]he district court was not required to advise Henry that his federal sentence might be imposed to run consecutive to his undischarged state sentence. Faulisi v. Daggett, 527 F.2d 305, 309 (7th Cir. 1975) (concluding that ‘the possibility that a federal sentence might be ruled to run consecutively to a state sentence being served is not a “consequence” of a plea of guilty concerning which the court must first address the defendant before accepting such plea’); see also United States v. Ray, 828 F.2d 399, 418 (7th Cir. 1987) (stating that ‘whether the federal sentence runs concurrently with or consecutively to the state sentence is not a direct consequence of the plea’); accord United States v. General, 278 F.3d 389, 395 (4th Cir. 2002) (‘Rule 11 . . . does not require a district court to inform the defendant of mandatory consecutive sentencing.’); cf. Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(1) (outlining 14 subjects the district court is required to address in the plea colloquy; whether a sentence may run consecutively to a state sentence is not one of them).”
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Kapala, J., Tinder, J.