Clarifying Plain-Error Review of Rule 11 Plea Colloquy Failures in the Eleventh Circuit

Introduction

This commentary examines the Eleventh Circuit’s decision in United States v. Lyedrekus Onetaye Bailey (No. 24-10288, 2025). The appellant, Lyedrekus Bailey, appealed his conviction for conspiracy to distribute heroin and fentanyl, arguing that his guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary. He alleged three errors at the Rule 11 plea colloquy: his counsel’s misstatement of the mandatory minimum sentence, insufficient precautions given his mental health and education, and that he would have declined the plea if fully informed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, applying the plain-error standard and reinforcing established Rule 11 principles.

Summary of the Judgment

The Eleventh Circuit, per curiam, held:

No plain error occurred when the district court accepted Bailey’s plea despite his counsel’s brief misstatement—because the Government and the court corrected it, and Bailey confirmed understanding.
The district court did not err in refusing a delay for a mental-health evaluation; Bailey provided no evidence his mental health or education impaired his understanding.
Even if error existed, it was not “plain” under on-point precedent, nor did it affect Bailey’s substantial rights—he repeatedly affirmed his desire to plead guilty and acknowledged the correct penalties.

The court affirmed the conviction.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

United States v. Presendieu, 880 F.3d 1228 (11th Cir. 2018): Establishes that unpreserved Rule 11 errors are reviewed for plain error.
United States v. Monroe, 353 F.3d 1346 (11th Cir. 2003): Articulates the four-part plain-error test and the burden on the defendant.
Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74 (2004): Requires a showing of reasonable probability that, but for the error, the defendant would not have pleaded guilty.
United States v. Schultz, 565 F.3d 1353 (11th Cir. 2009): Defines “plain” error as one contrary to explicit statutory or on-point precedent.
United States v. Moriarty, 429 F.3d 1012 (11th Cir. 2005): Describes the three “core principles” of Rule 11(b): voluntary plea, understanding of charges, and understanding of consequences.
United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55 (2002): Holds that review of a plea colloquy draws on the entire record, not just the transcript.

2. Legal Reasoning

The court’s analysis proceeded in three steps under plain-error review:

Error? The court found no reversible error. Although defense counsel misstated the mandatory minimum as 25 years, the Government immediately corrected it to 10 years, the court confirmed the correct figure, and Bailey affirmed his understanding and desire to proceed.
Plainness? Even assuming some Rule 11 lapse, Bailey pointed to no “on-point” Eleventh Circuit or Supreme Court precedent declaring identical conduct plainly erroneous. Citations to general Rule 11 obligations were insufficient.
Substantial Rights? Bailey could not show a reasonable probability he would have declined the plea. On the record he repeatedly affirmed he “always wanted to plead guilty” and understood the consequences after correction of the misstatement.

Because the first three prongs failed, the court did not reach the fourth prong concerning the fairness or integrity of the proceedings.

3. Impact

This decision clarifies several points for future Eleventh Circuit cases:

Brief misstatements by defense counsel at a plea hearing, promptly corrected by the Government and court, will not automatically invalidate a plea.
The “plain error” doctrine requires on-point precedent—general Rule 11 citations will not suffice.
Defendants must make a concrete showing that, absent the error, they would have foregone the plea. Bare assertions are inadequate.
The entire record—including post-colloquy filings and the defendant’s sworn statements—can defeat a claim of an unknowing plea.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Rule 11(b) Plea Colloquy: Before accepting a guilty plea, a judge must ensure that (1) the plea is voluntary, (2) the defendant understands the charges, and (3) the defendant understands the consequences, including waived rights and possible penalties.
Plain-Error Review: When a defendant fails to object at trial, an appellate court may correct an error only if it was obvious (“plain”), affected substantial rights (likely changed the outcome), and undermines confidence in the proceedings.
Mandatory Minimum: A statutorily required minimum prison term for certain offenses. Misstatements about it can affect a plea’s knowing character, but prompt correction can cure any confusion.
“On-Point” Precedent: A prior appellate or Supreme Court decision addressing identical facts or legal issues. Required to show an error was “plain.”

Conclusion

United States v. Bailey reaffirms the Eleventh Circuit’s rigorous approach to unpreserved Rule 11 errors. Counsel’s isolated misstatement, promptly corrected at the colloquy, did not render the plea unknowing or involuntary. The decision underscores the necessity of on-point precedent to establish plain error and the requirement that defendants demonstrate a real likelihood they would have rejected the plea but for the error. As a result, future litigants in the Eleventh Circuit will face a high threshold when challenging guilty pleas under the plain-error standard.