Where a defendant claims his plea was not knowing and intelligent because he was unaware of all the elements of the offense, does it matter whether he would have pled guilty anyway?

QUESTION PRESENTED Both petitioners pled guilty and were convicted in violation of 18 U.S.C. §922(g) of possessing a weapon having previously been convicted of a felony. Neither petitioner was advised at the Rule 11 colloquy or any other time that the government was required to prove that they were aware at the time they committed the offense that they possessed the requisite knowledge of there their status as a felon. The Court of Appeals determined that in light of Rehaif v. United States there was error but petitioners could not demonstrate the existence of plain error. In the view of the Court of Appeals petitioners’ challenge failed on the third prong of plain error, i.e., they could not demonstrate that but for the error they would not have pled guilty. This petition raises the following question: Where a defendant claims his plea was not knowing and intelligent because he was unaware of all the elements of the offense, does it matter whether he would have pled guilty anyway? 1