United States v. Delgado-Gonzales

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: March 16, 2000
• Docket: 98-50007
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

No. 98-50007 -1-

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-50007 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

VERSUS

JAVIER DELGADO-GONZALES,

Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. P-97-CR-29-1 -------------------- March 15, 2000

Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Javier Delgado-Gonzales argues that the magistrate judge

failed to comply with the requirements of Fed. R. Crim. P. 11

during his rearraignment proceedings because the magistrate judge

did not ascertain that he understood the nature of the charges

against him or that Delgado was not coerced into pleading guilty.

Delgado argues that it was evident from the record that he did not

have a good understanding of the English language. He further

argues that the magistrate judge did not ascertain whether he was

*

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. No. 98-50007 -2-

voluntarily waiving his right to present a defense at trial.**

A review of the record of the rearraignment hearing reflects

that Delgado had a sufficient command of the English language to

understand the nature of the proceedings and the charges to which

he was pleading guilty. The record also reflects that the

magistrate judge ascertained that Delgado was competent to enter a

plea and that Delgado was knowingly and voluntarily pleading guilty

to the conduct charges. Delgado failed to demonstrate that the

magistrate judge varied from the procedures required by Rule 11 or

that his substantial rights were prejudiced during the

rearraignment proceedings. See United States v. Johnson, 1 F.3d

296, 298-301 (5th Cir. 1993) (en banc).

Delgado also argues that the district court erred in denying

his motion to withdraw his plea. The record reflects that Delgado

was provided competent legal representation and that he knowingly

and voluntarily entered his guilty plea. Delgado has not carried

his burden of showing that there was a just and fair reason to

allow him to withdraw his guilty plea. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(e);

United States v. Carr, 740 F.2d 339, 343-44 (5th Cir. 1984). The

district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion

to withdraw the guilty plea. See United States v. Grant, 117 F.3d

788, 789 (5th Cir. 1997).

AFFIRMED.

**

Delgado’s purported defense of false arrest is not a defense at all. An illegal arrest, without more, does not implicate the validity of a subsequent conviction. United States v. Crews, 445 U.S. 463, 474 (1980); United States v. Zabaneh, 837 F.2d 1249, 1261 (5th Cir. 1988).