Whether the district court's omission of an independent inquiry into a defendant's mens rea during the Rule 11 plea colloquy for a specific intent crime is sufficient to prove that an inadequate factual basis exists for the plea if the record is silent or the defendant's mens rea is unclear

QUESTION PRESENTED On January 11, 2017, Petitioner was allegedly involved with the transport of a substance testing positive for methamphetamine in Kansas City, Missouri. After initially pleading not guilty to the charges against him, Petitioner moved to accept a plea agreement containing an appeal waiver, wherein he would plead guilty to aiding and abetting the possession with the intent to distribute a mixture or substance containing methamphetamine. Notably, the evidence against Petitioner was circumstantial and did not speak to Petitioner’s intentions or level of knowledge at the time of his arrest. Petitioner’s initial change of plea hearing was rescheduled after Petitioner, a person with a native language of Spanish, was participating via translator, exhibited an inability to understand the charge to which he was pleading. The district court granted a continuance of the change of plea hearing, and a second change of plea hearing was scheduled. At the second change of plea hearing, the district court’s Rule 11 plea colloquy involved zero questions regarding Petitioner’s intent or level of knowledge surrounding the charge underlying his plea agreement — a specific intent crime. Further, the district court did not inquire into the events that took place on the day of the alleged crime. Regardless, at the close of the second change of plea hearing, the district court declared that Petitioner was aware of the nature of the charges against him, that his plea was made knowingly and voluntarily, and that there was a factual basis to support the plea agreement. At the sentencing hearing, the government admitted that Petitioner’s level of knowledge was “subject to interpretation,” but insisted that Petitioner’s acceptance of the plea agreement was itself sufficient evidence of Petitioner’s mens rea. Petitioner was sentenced to 10 years in prison. The court of appeals found that the appeal waiver in Petitioner’s guilty plea did not prevent the court from considering the argument that Petitioner’s plea was not knowing or voluntary because there was an insufficient factual basis for the underlying charge. Using the plain error review standard, the court of appeals found that the district court did not plainly err in concluding that there was a sufficient factual basis underlying Petitioner’s plea agreement, affirming the judgment of the district court. The Question Presented is: Whether the district court’s omission of an independent inquiry into a defendant’s mens rea during the Rule 11 plea colloquy for a specific intent crime is sufficient to prove that an inadequate factual basis exists for the plea if the record is silent or the defendant’s mens rea is unclear. 1