United States v. Carlos Dominguez Benitez
The Court ruled that a federal criminal defendant who did not alert the district court to a possible Rule 11 violation must show on appeal that the violation affirmatively affected his rights to obtain reversal of his guilty plea conviction.· AI-written
542 U.S. 74 · No. 03-167 · 2003 term · Rehnquist Court
Decided Jun 14, 2004 · argued Apr 21, 2004
Criminal procedure · Plea bargaining: the constitutionality of and/or the circumstances of its exercise
Majority opinion: David Souter
The voteMajority
9–09 in the majority, 0 in dissent
No dissent (9–0)
Reversed and remanded. United States won.
What this ruling means
Reversed and remanded: the Supreme Court overturned the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit and sent the case back to that court for further proceedings that follow the Supreme Court’s ruling.
United States was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Won” means the Court gave that side the result it asked for.
From the Supreme Court Database. A justice who agreed with the result but not the reasoning counts in the majority.
Summary
The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.
United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74 (2004), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that, in a criminal proceeding in federal court, a defendant who does not alert the district court to a possible violation of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure must show on appeal that the violation affirmatively affected his rights in order to obtain reversal of his conviction by guilty plea. Rule 11, which pertains to criminal prosecutions in United States federal courts only, governs the offering of plea bargains to criminal defendants and the procedures district courts must employ to ensure that the defendant knows of and properly waives his trial-related constitutional rights.
In Benitez, the trial court violated Rule 11 when it took the defendant's plea by failing to warn him that the plea could not be withdrawn if the court did not accept the prosecution's sentencing recommendations. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the conviction, considering that the non-English speaking defendant did not understand his rights under those circumstances.
The Supreme Court unanimously reversed, ruling the Court of Appeals had applied the wrong test by not requiring the defendant to show how the error actually prejudiced the proceedings. The Court of Appeals had consequently failed to consider the entire record regarding what the defendant understood. An eight-justice majority of the Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice David Souter, held that a defendant attempting to reverse his conviction due to a Rule 11 violation must show a reasonable probability that, but for the trial court's error, he would not have entered the plea. Justice Antonin Scalia concurred in the judgment but disagreed with the majority's standard.
Data notes
The text is Wikipedia’s (CC BY-SA 4.0), matched to the case by its citation, docket number or name and year, and is not checked against the opinion. The site keeps the article’s opening section, ending on its last full sentence. The one-sentence summary under the title is the Decisions list’s: Wikipedia’s own ruling sentence, or, tagged “AI-written”, one Claude wrote from this opening.
How the justices voted
Each justice who took part, placed by their Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 2003 term. Filled: the 9 in the majority. Hollow: the 0 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.
Majority(9)
David SouterWrote the majority opinion
Antonin ScaliaWrote a concurrence
John StevensJoined the majority
Ruth GinsburgJoined the majority
Stephen BreyerJoined the majority
Sandra O'ConnorJoined the majority
Anthony KennedyJoined the majority
William RehnquistJoined the majority
Clarence ThomasJoined the majority
Dissent(0)
- None.
Data notes
Each justice’s vote and what they wrote are from the justice-centered file of the Supreme Court Database. “Wrote a concurrence” means the justice sided with the majority and wrote separately; a justice who dissented in part is counted on the side they took overall. A justice who wrote nothing is listed as joining their side.
Positions are each justice’s Martin–Quinn score for the case’s term, the same scores as the Ideology page: negative is more liberal, positive more conservative. A score sums up a justice’s votes across the whole term, so it says where they usually sit, not why they voted as they did here. The median line is the Court’s median justice that term.
The parties
Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.
- Petitioner
- United StatesUnited States
- Respondent
- Carlos Dominguez BenitezDefendant
- Reached the Court by
- Certiorari (the Court chose to hear it)
Data notes
The names are the two sides of the case’s title. The description under each is the Supreme Court Database’s category for that party, in its own wording. The petitioner is the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the decision below. “Why it was taken” appears only when the majority opinion says lower courts disagreed or were unsure about the question; reasons that would fit any case (“to resolve the question presented”, “an important question”) are left out.
The law at issue
The law the Court was asked to apply, and the kind of power it used to decide.
- Provision
- Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, or relevant rules of a circuit court
- Kind of law
- Court Rules
- Decided by
- Statutory construction
Data notes
The Supreme Court Database codes the main constitutional provision, statute or court rule each case turned on, and the basis of the decision: judicial review of a federal or state law, interpreting a statute, supervising the lower courts, and so on. A case can rest on more than one. “Overruled” counts only where the majority opinion says so.
Timeline
What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.
- Jun 14, 2004DecidedDecided · Decided 9–0: reversed and remanded. United States won.
- Apr 21, 2004ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
- Not datedTaken upTaken up · The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case (certiorari).
- Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit: reversed and remanded, with a dissent.
- Not datedBeganBegan · The case began in the California Central U.S. District Court.
Data notes
From the Supreme Court Database: the court the case began in, the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed and what that court did, how the case came to the Court, and the dates of argument and decision. The database does not date the steps in the lower courts. Court names are the database’s.
Other decisions on the same issue
26 other argued cases since 1946 on plea bargaining: the constitutionality of and/or the circumstances of its exercise, newest first.
- Class v. United States138 S. Ct. 798Feb 21, 2018 · 138 S. Ct. 798Criminal procedure6–36–3 band
- Burt v. Titlow571 U.S. 12Nov 5, 2013 · 571 U.S. 12Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band
- James Benjamin Puckett v. United States556 U.S. 129Mar 25, 2009 · 556 U.S. 129Criminal procedure7–27–2 band
- Margaret Bradshaw, Warden v. John David Stumpf545 U.S. 175Jun 13, 2005 · 545 U.S. 175Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band
- United States v. Angela Ruiz536 U.S. 622Jun 24, 2002 · 536 U.S. 622Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band
- Salvador Godinez, Warden v. Richard Allan MoranLandmark · Competence509 U.S. 389Jun 24, 1993 · 509 U.S. 389Criminal procedureLandmark · Competence7–27–2 band
- Al C. Parke, Warden v. Ricky Harold Raley506 U.S. 20Dec 1, 1992 · 506 U.S. 20Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band
- Hill v. Lockhart, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction474 U.S. 52Nov 18, 1985 · 474 U.S. 52Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band
- Mabry, Commissioner, Arkansas Department of Correction v. Johnson467 U.S. 504Jun 11, 1984 · 467 U.S. 504Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band
- Marshall, Superintendent, Southern Ohio Correctional Facility v. Lonberger459 U.S. 422Feb 22, 1983 · 459 U.S. 422Criminal procedure5–45–4 band
- United States v. Goodwin457 U.S. 368Jun 18, 1982 · 457 U.S. 368Criminal procedure7–27–2 band
- Corbitt v. New Jersey439 U.S. 212Dec 11, 1978 · 439 U.S. 212Criminal procedure6–36–3 band
- Bordenkircher, Penitentiary Superintendent v. Hayes434 U.S. 357Jan 18, 1978 · 434 U.S. 357Criminal procedure5–45–4 band
- Blackledge, Warden, et al. v. Allison431 U.S. 63May 2, 1977 · 431 U.S. 63Criminal procedure8–0Unanimous band
- Henderson, Correctional Superintendent v. Morgan426 U.S. 637Jun 17, 1976 · 426 U.S. 637Criminal procedure7–27–2 band
- Blackledge, Warden, et al. v. Perry417 U.S. 21May 20, 1974 · 417 U.S. 21Criminal procedure7–27–2 band
- Tollett, Warden v. Henderson411 U.S. 258Apr 17, 1973 · 411 U.S. 258Criminal procedure6–36–3 band
- Dukes v. Warden, Connecticut State Prison406 U.S. 250May 15, 1972 · 406 U.S. 250Criminal procedure7–27–2 band
- Santobello v. New York404 U.S. 257Dec 20, 1971 · 404 U.S. 257Criminal procedure4–36–3 band
- North Carolina v. Alford400 U.S. 25Nov 23, 1970 · 400 U.S. 25Criminal procedure6–36–3 band
- Parker v. North Carolina397 U.S. 790May 4, 1970 · 397 U.S. 790Criminal procedure5–36–3 band
- McMann, Warden, et al. v. Richardson et al.397 U.S. 759May 4, 1970 · 397 U.S. 759Criminal procedure5–36–3 band
- Brady v. United States397 U.S. 742May 4, 1970 · 397 U.S. 742Criminal procedure8–0Unanimous band
- Boykin v. Alabama395 U.S. 238Jun 2, 1969 · 395 U.S. 238Criminal procedure6–27–2 band
- McCarthy v. United States394 U.S. 459Apr 2, 1969 · 394 U.S. 459Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band
- United States ex rel. Smith v. Baldi, Superintendent, Philadelphia County Prison344 U.S. 561Feb 9, 1953 · 344 U.S. 561Criminal procedure6–36–3 band
Data notes
Every other orally argued case with a clear vote, from the 1946 term on, that the Supreme Court Database files under the same issue as this one. The database gives each case one issue from a list of about 270 (abortion, search and seizure of vehicles, the death penalty, and so on), whatever law it turned on.
Official record
Read the full opinion on Justia, the argument audio on Oyez and Wikipedia. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.