Background
Trevion Swansea Wigfall pleaded guilty to four counts, including possessing a firearm as a felon under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). During the plea hearing, the district court told him that the maximum sentence for that count was 10 years. A probation officer later identified that the maximum was 15 years, but Wigfall had not been advised before pleading guilty that the Armed Career Criminal Act could impose an enhanced mandatory minimum based on his prior convictions.
The presentence report identified three alleged ACCA predicates and also applied the career-offender enhancement. After the government sought a reduction, the district court imposed a total sentence of 184 months. Wigfall appealed, arguing that the defective plea colloquy affected his substantial rights and that, under Erlinger v. United States, a jury rather than the judge had to determine whether his prior offenses occurred on different occasions.
The Court’s Holding
The Fourth Circuit held that the district court plainly erred by accepting Wigfall’s plea without adequately advising him of the materially greater sentencing exposure arising from the ACCA and career-offender provisions. The court concluded that the error affected Wigfall’s substantial rights because there was a reasonable probability of a different outcome had he understood that exposure before pleading guilty. The government’s sentencing-reduction motion mitigated the prejudice but did not cure it.
The panel vacated the judgment as to Wigfall’s guilty plea and remanded for a new Rule 11 plea hearing. It otherwise affirmed, rejecting Wigfall’s Erlinger claim because the record conclusively established that his 2016 robbery offense, 2017 crack-cocaine offense, and 2019 cocaine-base offense occurred on separate occasions; accordingly, any failure to submit that issue to a jury was harmless under plain-error review.
Key Takeaways
- Rule 11 requires a defendant to be advised before pleading guilty of applicable maximum penalties and mandatory minimum sentences.
- A later disclosure of enhanced sentencing exposure does not necessarily cure an inadequate plea colloquy, even when the defendant does not move to withdraw the plea.
- An Erlinger error does not warrant reversal when the record conclusively shows that the ACCA predicates occurred on different occasions and no properly instructed jury reasonably could have found otherwise.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that accurate advice about statutory enhancements is central to a knowing and voluntary guilty plea. Courts assessing plain-error prejudice must consider the defendant’s actual sentencing exposure and cannot assume that a later downward reduction erased the consequences of misinformation at the plea stage.
At the same time, the opinion shows that an ACCA different-occasions finding made by a judge may survive appellate review when the record leaves no reasonable factual dispute for a jury to resolve.