United States vs. Melendez-Martinez

Filing 920060612

Opinion

Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT F I L E D June 12, 2006 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court U N ITED STA TES O F A M ER IC A , P l a in t i f f - A p p e ll e e , v. JESUS M ELEND EZ-M AR TINEZ, D efendant-A ppellant. No. 05-4285 (D .C . N o. 1:02-C R -102-T C ) (D . U tah) ORDER AND JUDGM ENT* B e f o r e K E L L Y , L U C E R O , a n d M c C O N N E L L , C i r c u it J u d g e s . A f te r e x a m i n i n g t h e b r i e f s a n d a p p e l l a te r e c o rd , t h i s p a n e l h a s d e te r m i n e d u n a n im o u s l y t h a t o r a l a r g u m e n t w o u l d n o t m a te r i a ll y a s s i s t t h e d e t e r m i n a tio n o f th is a p p e a l. S e e F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 ( a ) ( 2 ) ; 1 0 t h C ir . R . 3 4 . 1 ( G ) . T h e c a s e i s t h e r e f o r e o r d e r e d s u b m i t te d w i t h o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t . T h i s o r d e r a n d ju d g m e n t i s n o t b i n d i n g p r e c e d e n t, e x c e p t u n d e r t h e d o c tr i n e s o f la w o f th e c a s e , r e s j u d i c a ta , a n d c o ll a te r a l e s t o p p e l. T h e c o u r t g e n e r a ll y d i s f a v o r s t h e c i ta t i o n o f o r d e r s a n d j u d g m e n t s ; n e v e r th e l e s s , a n o r d e r a n d j u d g m e n t m a y b e c i t e d u n d e r t h e t e r m s a n d c o n d i t io n s o f 1 0 t h C i r . R . 3 6 .3 . * BACKGROUND T h e d e f e n d a n t w a s o r i g i n a ll y c o n v ic te d in 2 0 0 3 , f o ll o w i n g t h e e n tr y o f a n u n c o n d i t io n a l g u i l ty p l e a , o f o n e c o u n t o f p o s s e s s i o n w i t h i n t e n t t o d i s t r i b u t e m o r e t h a n f iv e g r a m s o f m e t h a m p h e t a m i n e , a n d o n e c o u n t o f possession of a firearm by an unlaw ful user of a controlled substance. O n a p p e a l , t h i s c o u r t r e v e rs e d , h o l d i n g t h a t t h e p le a w a s n o t k n o w i n g a n d voluntary because the defendant had been told by his attorney that he could r a i s e t h e d e n ia l o f h is m o tio n to s u p p r e s s in a 2 8 U .S .C . 2 2 5 5 p r o c e e d in g . T h e c o u rt a ls o h e ld t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t' s r i g h t t o a ll o c u ti o n w a s d e n ie d b y t h e d i s t r i c t c o u rt . T h e c o u rt re m a n d e d f o r f u r t h e r p r o c e e d in g s . S e e U n i t e d S t a t e s v . R o d r i g u e z - G o n z a l e s , 3 8 6 F .3 d 9 5 1 ( 1 0 t h C i r. 2 0 0 4 ) . O n r e m a n d t h e d e f e n d a n t a g a i n e n t e r e d a n u n c o n d i t io n a l g u i l ty p l e a t o the same two counts. The plea agreement contains a w aiver of the right to a p p e a l t h e s e n te n c e . I n a d d it i o n , t h e g o v e rn m e n t a g r e e d to r e c o m m e n d a t w o - l e v e l r e d u c ti o n u n d e r U .S . S . G . 5 K 2 .0 i n e x c h a n g e f o r a n a g re e m e n t by the defendant to w aive his right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress. A t s e n te n c in g , t h e g o v e rn m e n t m o v e d f o r t h e a d d it i o n a l t w o - l e v e l r e d u c ti o n . T h i s r e s u l t e d in a n a d v is o r y g u i d e li n e s e n te n c e o f 1 3 0 to 1 6 2 m o n t h s . T h e d e f e n d a n t r e q u e s t e d a f u r t h e r d o w n w a r d d e p a rt u r e to t h e s t a tu t o r y m i n i m u m o f 1 2 0 m o n t h s . T h e d is t r i c t c o u r t g r a n te d th e 2 g o v e r n m e n t 's m o t io n , b u t d e n i e d t h e d e f e n d a n t 's r e q u e s t . T h e c o u r t i m p o s e d a s e n te n c e o f 1 2 7 m o n t h s , g i v i n g t h e d e f e n d a n t t h e b e n e f it o f th r e e m o n t h s h e s p e n t i n s t a t e c u s t o d y. D ISC USSIO N D e f e n s e c o u n s e l h a s f il e d a b ri e f p u r s u a n t t o A n d e r s v . C a l i fo r n i a , 3 8 6 U . S . 7 1 8 ( 1 9 6 7 ) , a n d h a s m o v e d t o w i th d r a w a s c o u n s e l , a r g u i n g t h a t t h e r e a r e n o n o n - f r i v o l o u s a r g u m e n ts t o r a is e o n a p p e a l. H o w e v e r, c o u n s e l d o e s r a is e th r e e p o s s i b l e is s u e s : 1 ) t h a t t h e d is t r i c t c o u r t e r r e d in d e n yi n g t h e d e f e n d a n t' s m o t i o n t o s u p p r e s s ; 2 ) t h a t t h e p le a w a s n o t k n o w i n g a n d v o l u n t a r y; a n d 3 ) th a t t h e d is t r i c t c o u r t a b u s e d it s d i s c r e ti o n i n i m p o s i n g t h e 1 2 7 m o n t h s e n te n c e . T h e d e f e n d a n t m a y n o t a p p e a l th e d is t r i c t c o u r t ' s d e n ia l o f h is m o t i o n t o s u p p r e s s b e c a u s e h e e n te re d a n u n c o n d itio n a l g u ilty p le a . S e e U n i t e d States v. D avis, 900 F.2d 1524, 1525-26 (10th C ir. 1990) (holding that d e f e n d a n t ' s g u i l t y p l e a f o r e c l o s e d h i s o p p o r t u n i t y t o c h a l l e n g e t r i a l c o u r t 's d e n ia l o f m o t i o n s t o s u p p r e s s ; " [ b ] y e n te r i n g a v o lu n t a r y p l e a o f g u i l t y, [ th e d e f e n d a n t ] w a i v e d a l l n o n j u r i s d i c ti o n a l d e f e n s e s " ) . A s f o r t h e c o n t e n t i o n t h a t t h e p l e a w a s n o t k n o w in g a n d v o l u n t a r y, w e h a v e r e v i e w e d th e re c o rd , a n d d e te r m in e th a t th is a r g u m e n t is w ith o u t m e r i t. " A p l e a is v a li d i f it r e p r e s e n ts a v o lu n t a r y a n d in t e ll i g e n t c h o ic e a m o n g t h e 3 a lt e r n a ti v e s o p e n to t h e d e f e n d a n t." U n i t e d S ta t e s v . G i g l e y , 2 1 3 F . 3 d 5 0 9 , 5 1 6 ( 1 0 t h C i r . 2 0 0 0 ) ( c ita ti o n o m i t t e d ) . A r e v ie w o f b o th t h e S t a te m e n t b y D e f e n d a n t i n A d v a n c e o f P l e a o f G u i l t y a n d th e tr a n s c r i p t o f th e p le a h e a ri n g c le a rl y i n d i c a te s t h a t t h e p le a w a s k n o w i n g a n d v o lu n t a r y. T h e S t a t e m e n t b y D e f e n d a n t in A d v a n c e o f P l e a o f G u i lt y d e s c r ib e s t h e s t a t u t o r y m a x im u m p e n a lt i e s a n d in f o r m e d th e d e f e n d a n t a b o u t t h e r i g h t s h e w a s w a iv i n g . T h e d is t r i c t c o u r t c o n d u c te d a th o r o u g h i n q u i r y a t t h e p le a h e a r i n g t o e n s u r e th a t th e d e f e n d a n t' s g u ilty p le a w a s v o lu n ta r y a n d k n o w in g . The third issue, that the district court abused its discretion in i m p o s i n g a s e n te n c e o f 1 2 0 m o n t h s , i s t h e s u b j e c t o f a m o t i o n t o e n f o r c e th e plea agreement filed by the government. W e agree that the issue falls w ithin t h e a p p e l l a te w a iv e r s e t o u t i n t h e S t a te m e n t b y D e f e n d a n t i n A d v a n c e o f P l e a o f G u ilty a n d th a t th e w a iv e r i s e n f o r c e a b le . S e e U n i t e d S ta t e s v . H a h n , 3 5 9 F . 3 d 1 3 1 5 , 1 3 2 5 ( 1 0 t h C i r . 2 0 0 4 ) ( " th e c o u rt o f a p p e a ls , i n r e v ie w i n g appeals brought after a defendant has entered into an appeal waiver, d e te r m i n e [ s ] : ( 1 ) w h e th e r t h e d is p u t e d a p p e a l f a ll s w i t h i n t h e s c o p e o f t h e w a iv e r o f a p p e l l a te r i g h t s ; ( 2 ) w h e th e r t h e d e f e n d a n t k n o w i n g l y a n d v o l u n t a r i l y w a iv e d h is a p p e ll a te r i g h t s ; a n d (3 ) w h e th e r e n f o r c in g t h e w a i v e r w o u ld re s u lt in a m is c a r r ia g e o f ju s tic e a s w e d e f in e h e r e in ." ) . B e c a u s e th e d e f e n d a n t h a s n o t s h o w n a n y m e r i t o r i o u s g r o u n d s f o r a p p e a l , w e G R A N T d e f e n s e c o u n s e l' s r e q u e s t t o w i t h d r a w a n d D I S M I S S 4 the appeal. The government's m otion to enforce the plea agreement is G R A N T E D . The defendant's m otion for appointment of counsel is D E N I E D . T h e m a n d a t e s h a ll i s s u e f o r t h w i t h . E n t e r e d f o r th e C o u r t PER CU RIA M 5

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?