FindLaw > Criminal Law Summaries > 1998 Index > Peguero v. United States

Case: Peguero v. United States

Issue: Whether a district court's failure to advise a defendant of his right to appeal, as required by the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, provides a basis for collateral relief even when the defendant was already aware of his right to appeal at the time the trial court neglected to give the required advice.

Facts: Petitioner Manuel Peguero pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute cocaine and received a 274 month sentence. At the sentencing hearing, however, the district court failed to inform Peguero of his right to appeal his sentence. Four years later, Peguero filed a motion to set aside his conviction and sentence because his counsel had failed to file a notice of appeal that he requested. Peguero's new counsel then added a claim that the trial court violated then Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(a)(2), now Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(c)(5), by not advising Peguero of his right to appeal his sentence at the sentencing proceeding.

Peguero testified in district court that he asked his lawyer to file an appeal immediately upon being sentenced. Peguero's former trial counsel testified that petitioner told him he did not want to appeal because he hoped to cooperate with the government and earn a sentence reduction pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(b). The district court found that although the sentencing court had erred in failing to advise Peguero of his right to appeal his sentence, Peguero was already aware of his right to appeal when the sentencing hearing took place, and further, that he did not request the appeal for strategic reasons related to sentence reduction. Since Peguero was aware of his right to appeal at the time of sentencing, he suffered no prejudice from the trial court's failure to give notice of the right to appeal. (The court also rejected Peguero's ineffective counsel claim, crediting the attorney's testimony, and that issue was not before the Supreme Court.) The Third Circuit affirmed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a conflict in the Circuits.

Holding: "A district court's failure to advise the defendant of his right to appeal does not entitle him to habeas relief if he knew of his right and hence suffered no prejudice from the omission."

Reasoning: Justice Kennedy, writing for a unanimous Court, reaffirmed the holdings of Hill v. United States, 368 U.S. 424, and United States v. Timmreck, 441 U.S.780, that "as a general rule, a court's failure to give a defendant advice required by the Federal Rules is a sufficient basis for collateral relief only when the defendant is prejudiced by the court's error." (emphasis added). Under these precedents, violation of the Federal Rules alone does not automatically establish entitlement to collateral relief. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 52(a) also prohibits federal courts from granting relief based on errors unless substantial rights are affected.

Other Opinions: Justice O'Connor, joined by Justices Stevens, Ginsburg, and Breyer concurred in the majority's opinion but noted that under Rodriquez v. United States, 395 U.S. 327 (1969), a defendant who is not given the required notice of appeal does not have to prove prejudice through a showing that he had meritorious grounds for appeal in the first place.

Comment: The majority pointed to Rodriquez's "limited and fact-specific conclusion," but did not question "the rule in Rodriquez," that petitioners who were not notified of their right to appeal do not have to prove that they had meritorious grounds for appeal in the first place.