United States v. Mastrapa

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the district court plainly erred in finding a sufficient factual basis where the defendant repeatedly protested the mens rea element of the crime and the government failed to “fill the gap” with facts
• stating that the factual basis requirement guards against possible discrepancy between the defendant's acknowledgment of guilt and his or her understanding of what the crime entailed
• stating that the factual basis require- ment guards against possible discrepancy between the defen- dant’s acknowledgment of guilt and his or her understanding of what the crime entailed
• stating that the factual basis require- ment guards against possible discrepancy between the defen- dant’s acknowledgment of guilt and his or her understanding of what the crime entailed
• finding plain error where the district court accepted a guilty plea “from a defendant who did not admit to an essential element of guilt under the charge”
• vacating conviction because defendant protested having the requisite mens rea for the crime to which he was pleading guilty and, thus, there was an insufficient factual basis for guilty plea

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).