USA v. Connee Rinestine

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [10-50098 Affirmed ] Judge: EGJ , Judge: EMG , Judge: CES Mandate pull date is 10/12/2010 for Appellant Connee Rinestine [10-50098]

USA v. Connee Rinestine

Doc. 0

Case: 10-50098

Document: 00511238087

Page: 1

Date Filed: 09/20/2010

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED
N o . 10-50098 S u m m a r y Calendar September 20, 2010 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk

U N IT E D STATES OF AMERICA, P la in t if f -A p p e lle e v. C O N N E E RINESTINE, D e fe n d a n t -A p p e lla n t

A p p e a l from the United States District Court fo r the Western District of Texas U S D C No. 3:09-CR-974-9

B e fo r e JOLLY, GARZA and STEWART, Circuit Judges. P E R CURIAM:* C o n n e e Rinestine appeals her guilty plea conviction and 120-month m a n d a t o r y minimum sentence for conspiracy to manufacture more than five g r a m s of methamphetamine. Rinestine did not challenge her guilty plea in the d is t r ic t court, but she now argues that her plea was not knowingly or voluntarily e n te r e d because she was misinformed about the mandatory minimum sentence a n d because she was reluctant to agree with the factual basis for her plea.

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

*

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 10-50098

Document: 00511238087 Page: 2 No. 10-50098

Date Filed: 09/20/2010

B e c a u s e Rinestine did not object in the district court on this ground, we r e v ie w Rinestine's argument that her guilty plea was not entered knowingly or v o lu n t a r ily for plain error. See United States v. Brown, 328 F.3d 787, 789 (5th C ir . 2003). A plain error is a forfeited error that is clear or obvious and affects t h e defendant's substantial rights. United States v. Ellis, 564 F.3d 370, 377 (5th C ir .), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 371 (2009). When those elements are shown, this c o u r t has the discretion to correct the error only if it "seriously affects the fa ir n e s s , integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings." Id. (internal q u o t a t io n and citation omitted). A guilty plea involves the waiver of several constitutional rights and must b e made knowingly and voluntarily. Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 242-44 (1 9 6 9 ); see also FED. R. CRIM. P. 11. "[A] defendant who seeks reversal of his c o n v ic t io n after a guilty plea, on the ground that the district court committed p la in error under Rule 11, must show a reasonable probability that, but for the e r r o r , he would not have entered the plea." United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 5 4 2 U.S. 74, 83 (2004). A review of the rearraignment transcript reveals that the district court p r o p e r ly admonished Rinestine about the statutory mandatory minimum s e n te n c e and that Rinestine agreed to the factual basis for her plea after the d is t r ic t court told her that she could plead "not guilty" if she so desired. Further, R in e s t in e has not alleged that but for any Rule 11 error, she would have pleaded " n o t guilty" and proceeded to trial. Rinestine has not shown that the district c o u r t plainly erred by accepting her guilty plea. R in e s t in e also seeks to raise a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in c o n n e c t io n with her guilty plea. Because the ineffective assistance of counsel c la im was not raised in the district court, there has been no opportunity to d e v e lo p the record on the merits of the allegations. See United States v.

C a n tw e ll, 470 F.3d 1087, 1091 (5th Cir. 2006). Accordingly, we decline to review

2

Case: 10-50098

Document: 00511238087 Page: 3 No. 10-50098

Date Filed: 09/20/2010

R in e s t in e 's ineffective assistance of counsel claim. The judgment of the district c o u r t is AFFIRMED.

3