sentence enhancement due to its prior sentencing miscalculation, thereby depriving him of the opportunity to make a knowing and intelligent decision to accept an earlier plea offer that did not include the enhancement. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(b) states that the court must hold a hearing and inform a defendant of, and determine that he understands, “any maximum possible penalty, including imprisonment, fíne, and term of supervised release” and “any mandatory minimum penalty,” before it accepts his guilty plea (the plea hearing). Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(1)(H) & (I). A failure to ensure that a defendant understands his range of exposure may violate the requirement that a guilty plea be “knowing and voluntary.” See, e.g., Tanner v. McDaniel, 493 F.3d 1135, 1146 (9th Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>). Forrester’s case differs from the standard
holding that a defendant must have knowledge of the likely consequences of entering the guilty plea in order for a plea to be voluntary and knowing holding that a guilty plea must be both knowing and voluntary and must be a voluntary and intelligent choice among the alternative courses of action available to a defendant recognizing that a voluntary and understanding guilty plea entered without the benefit of a plea bargain waives all nonjurisdictional defects that occurred before the entry of the plea holding that guilty plea is voluntary and knowing only if defendant understands the range of allowable punishment that will result from his plea holding that a defendant is aware of the consequences of his plea for sentencing purposes and the plea is voluntary as long as he understands the length of time he might possibly receive