Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

defendantjurisdictionappealhearingpleamotionwillprosecutorguilty plea
jurisdictionappealhearingpleamotionguilty plea

Related Cases

Kenyon v. Plump, Not Reported in S.W. Rptr., 2020 WL 133894
View Case »
Hubbard Broadcasting, Inc. v. Loescher, 291 N.W.2d 216
View Case »
Gasperini v. Center for Humanities, Inc., 518 U.S. 415, 116 S.Ct. 2211, 135 L.Ed.2d 659, 64 USLW 4607, 96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4548, 96 Daily Journal D.A.R. 7338
View Case »
Jack Kahn Music Co. v. Baldwin Piano & Organ Co., Not Reported in F.Supp., 1978 WL 1449, 1978-2 Trade Cases P 62,377
View Case »
Pinto v. Spectrum Chemicals and Laboratory Products, 200 N.J. 580, 985 A.2d 1239, 108 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 1070, 30 IER Cases 367
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

United States v. Pickering, 771 Fed.Appx. 287 (Mem)

Facts

Seth Willis Pickering was charged with first-degree murder for killing his six-year-old daughter while camping on the Blue Ridge Parkway in North Carolina. He pleaded guilty as part of a plea agreement, waiving his rights to contest the conviction except for claims of ineffective assistance of counsel or prosecutorial misconduct. After his sentencing to life in prison, Pickering filed an appeal challenging the jurisdiction of the district court and the factual basis for his guilty plea.

Pickering was charged with first-degree murder for killing his six-year-old daughter while camping on the Blue Ridge Parkway in North Carolina.

Issue

Did the district court have jurisdiction over Pickering's case, and was there a sufficient factual basis for his guilty plea?

Pickering filed an appeal, arguing that (1) the district court lacked jurisdiction over his case because there was insufficient evidence that he committed his crime within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States; (2) the appeal waiver does not bar his jurisdictional argument because 'the requirement of jurisdiction may not be waived'; and (3) the district court failed to ensure that there was a factual basis for finding that he committed his offense within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States before accepting his plea.

Rule

The district court has original jurisdiction over offenses against the laws of the United States under 18 U.S.C. § 3231, and a defendant's appeal waiver can bar challenges to the conviction unless it pertains to jurisdiction, which cannot be waived.

the district court had jurisdiction over Pickering’s case and that it did not err in finding a factual basis for his plea.

Analysis

The court reviewed the stipulated factual basis and the plea hearing, where Pickering confirmed he was camping on the Blue Ridge Parkway within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States when he committed the murder. The court found no plain error in the district court's determination of a sufficient factual basis for the plea. Furthermore, Pickering's argument regarding jurisdiction was dismissed as it fell within the scope of the appeal waiver.

Having reviewed the stipulated factual basis and the plea hearing—at which Pickering confirmed his agreement with the factual basis, including the stipulation that he 'was camping on the Blue Ridge Parkway … within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States' when he killed his daughter—we identify no error, plain or otherwise, in the court’s finding of a factual basis for his plea.

Conclusion

The court granted the Government's motion for summary dismissal in part and affirmed the district court's judgment, concluding that there was no error in the factual basis for Pickering's guilty plea.

Accordingly, we grant the Government’s motion for summary dismissal in part and affirm the district court’s judgment.

Who won?

The Government prevailed in the case because the court found that the district court had jurisdiction and that there was a sufficient factual basis for Pickering's guilty plea.

The Government has filed a motion for summary disposition, urging us to dismiss Pickering’s appeal to the extent he argues that there was insufficient evidence, and to affirm the district court’s judgment to the extent Pickering challenges the court’s finding of a factual basis for his guilty plea.

You must be