USA V. JUSTIN WERLE, No. 20-36005 (9th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
Defendant sought to vacate the conviction because he pled guilty without being informed of the mens rea element announced in Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019). Defendant did not challenge the omission of this element in the district court or on direct appeal, his claim is procedurally defaulted, such that the district court may not consider the merits of the claim unless Defendant can overcome the default by showing (1) cause for not raising the error sooner; and (2) prejudice, which means a reasonable probability that Defendant would not have pled guilty had he been properly informed of the elements of the offense
The district court summarily denied the motion without supplementing the record, holding an evidentiary hearing, or making factual findings. The court held that the district court’s summary denial was erroneous. The court wrote that the district court erred by applying plain-error analysis. Rejecting the Government’s specific arguments, the court held (1) neither the fact that Defendant was sentenced to more than one year in prison nor his acknowledgment at his sentencing hearing that he had been “convicted of felonies,” is conclusive evidence that he would have pled guilty even if he were informed of all of the elements of the offense; and (2) the potential loss of an acceptance-of-responsibility reduction is not so great that it alone conclusively establishes that Defendant would have pled guilty to the felon-in-possession count even if he were properly informed of the elements of the offense.
Court Description: 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The panel vacated the district court’s summary denial of a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion in which Justin Curtis Werle seeks to vacate his felon-in-possession-of-a-firearm conviction under 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(a)(2) and 922(g)(1), and remanded for an evidentiary hearing. Werle sought to vacate the conviction because he pled guilty without being informed of the mens rea element announced in Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019)—i.e., that the Government must prove not only that the defendant knew he possessed a firearm, but also that he knew he was a felon when he possessed the firearm. Since Werle did not challenge the omission of this element in the district court or on direct appeal, his claim is procedurally defaulted, such that the district court may not consider the merits of the claim unless Werle can overcome the default by showing (1) cause for not raising the error sooner; and (2) prejudice, which means a reasonable probability that Werle would not have pled guilty had he been properly informed of the elements of the offense. The district court summarily denied the motion without supplementing the record, holding an evidentiary hearing, or making factual findings. In doing so, the district court necessarily concluded that the motion and the files and records of the case conclusively show that Werle is entitled to no relief. The district court reasoned that because Werle UNITED STATES V. WERLE 3 had been sentenced to one year and one day in prison five years before possessing the firearm at issue, he could not establish prejudice. The panel held that the district court’s summary denial was erroneous. The panel wrote that, as the parties agreed, the district court erred by applying plain-error analysis. The panel held that Werle established cause necessary to overcome the procedural default because any argument that the Government was required to prove he knew he had been convicted of a crime punishable by more than one year in prison at the time he possessed the firearm would have been futile at the time he pled guilty, when every court to address that argument had rejected it. In so holding, the panel rejected the Government’s argument that Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614 (1998), overruled Reed v. Ross, 468 U.S. 1 (1984), in which the Supreme Court held that the cause requirement may be satisfied under certain circumstances, including when the Supreme Court overturns a longstanding and widespread practice to which the Supreme Court has not spoken, but which a near-unanimous body of lower court authority has expressly approved. Before analyzing the parties’ prejudice arguments, the panel wrote that in the context of a § 2255 motion, procedural default is an affirmative defense, and the district court may deny the petition without a hearing only if the record conclusively establishes the defendant cannot overcome the procedural default. The panel held that the record in this case does not conclusively establish prejudice. Rejecting the Government’s specific arguments, the panel held (1) neither the fact that Werle was sentenced to more 4 UNITED STATES V. WERLE than one year in prison, nor his acknowledgment at his sentencing hearing that he had been “convicted of felonies,” is conclusive evidence that he would have pled guilty even if he were informed of all of the elements of the offense; and (2) the potential loss of an acceptance-of-responsibility reduction is not so great that it alone conclusively establishes that Werle would have pled guilty to the felon-in-possession count even if he were properly informed of the of the elements of the offense. Emphasizing that its discussion is not meant to suggest that the district court must reach a particular conclusion, the district court remanded for an evidentiary hearing.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.