United States v. Melendez-Martinez
This text of United States v. Melendez-Martinez (United States v. Melendez-Martinez) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS June 12, 2006 FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 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 , No. 05-4285 v. (D .C . N o. 1:02-C R -102-T C ) (D . U tah) JESUS M ELEND EZ-M AR TINEZ,
D efendant-A ppellant.
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 rs 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
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
United States v. Melendez-Martinez, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-melendez-martinez-ca10-2006.