United States v. Gina R. Gigot, Also Known as Gina R. Herrmann

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that Rule 11(c)(1) violation was not subsequently cured by information contained in presentence report
• finding that an explanation of the elements of the crime was constitutionally required where the charges were “far from simple or straightforward”
• holding on direct appeal that defendant’s guilty plea was involuntary be cause, inter alia, district court incorrectly advised her at plea hearing of minimum and maximum sentences she was facing in violation of Rule 11(c)(1)
• finding plea involuntary where the defendant was “never informed by the indictment or otherwise of the elements of the offenses to which she pled guilty”
• reviewing de novo “[w]hether a district court has complied with Rule 11 in accepting a defendant’s plea and, accordingly, whether the defendant’s plea was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary”
• “A plea must ‘constitute a deliberate, intelligent choice between available alternatives’ in order to be knowingly and intelligently made.” (quoting United States v. Rhodes, 913 F.2d 839, 843 (10th Cir. 1990))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).