However, such a statement is admissible:
Sup. Ct. R. D.C. 11
COMMENT TO 2017 AMENDMENTS
Subsection (c)(3)(A) has been amended to reflect that the definition of "victim" is now in Rule 1. Additionally, the term "removal" has been added to the warning about immigration consequences in subsection (b)(1)(K). This amendment maintains the language prescribed by D.C. Code § 16-713 (2012 Repl.) but reflects the shift in terminology brought about by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009.
COMMENT TO 2016 AMENDMENTS
This rule has been redrafted to conform to the general restyling of the federal rules in 2002. It differs from the federal rule in several respects.
In subparagraph (b)(1), the advice required to be given to the defendant differs from the federal rule. Four subparagraphs found in the federal rule are not included, as they are locally inapplicable: (J) on forfeiture, (L) on special assessments, (M) on application of the United States Sentencing Guidelines, and (N) on waiver of appeal and collateral attacks.
Subparagraph (b)(1)(H) includes a new requirement that the court advise the defendant of the applicable term of supervised release. This has long been required by the federal rule, but was not relevant in Superior Court until the enactment of D.C. Code § 24-403.01 (2012 Repl.) as part of the Sentencing Reform Amendment Act of 2000, which requires the imposition of supervised release following a term of imprisonment.
A new subparagraph (b)(1)(K) has been added to reflect the requirements of D.C. Code § 16-713 (2012 Repl.) (Alien Sentencing).
A new subparagraph (b)(4) has been added to reflect the requirements of the Innocence Protection Act of 2001, D.C. Code § 22-4132 (2012 Repl.).
Subparagraph (c)(1)(C) omits the federal rule's reference to the United States Sentencing Guidelines.
Subparagraph (c)(3)(A) provides that whenever the plea agreement is of the type specified in subparagraph (c)(1)(C) and the plea is to an offense involving a victim as defined in D.C. Code § 23-1905 (2012 Repl.), the court must defer deciding whether to accept the agreement until it has reviewed the presentence report.
Consistent with the reorganization of the federal rules, paragraph (d) of this rule now contains the substance of former Superior Court Rule 32(e) (Withdrawal of Plea of Guilty). It retains the difference between the federal and Superior Court provisions: postsentence plea withdrawal is not permitted by the federal rule, but is permitted by this rule to correct manifest injustice. No change in practice is intended.
Paragraph (e) retains the language of the former Superior Court rule regarding the admissibility of pleas and related statements. The corresponding language in the federal rule was changed to refer to Federal Rule of Evidence 410. Because this jurisdiction has not adopted the Federal Rules of Evidence, the Superior Court rule did not follow this change.
Paragraph (i) of the former Superior Court rule, defining the term "court," has been deleted as unnecessary in light of the definition of the term in Rule 1.