09-1500, 09-1525, 09-1875 & 09-2431 U.S. v. Pineda-Buenaventura

Listen to this article

Criminal Procedure
Plea withdrawal

Where the defendant demonstrated confusion with the concept of conspiracy, the confusion was never resolved by the district, and it cannot be determined from the colloquy what acts the defendant admitted, his guilty plea did not comply with Rule 11.

“We find that the Rule 11 errors that occurred during the plea colloquy in this case were plain and affected Mendoza’s substantial rights. See Vonn, 535 U.S. at 62; see also United States v. Bradley, 381 F.3d 641, 647 (7th Cir. 2004) (‘Misunderstanding of the nature of the charge . . . is not harmless error.’). That a plea be knowing and voluntary is a ‘core concern’ of Rule 11. United States v. Pena, 314 F.3d 1152, 1157 (9th Cir. 2003). ‘[A] defendant’s clear understanding of the nature of the charge to which he is pleading guilty relates to the very heart of the protections afforded by the Constitution and Rule 11.’ Fernandez, 205 F.3d at 1027. Looking at the totality of the circumstances, we conclude that the variances from Rule 11 that occurred during Mendoza’s plea colloquy warrant vacatur of his conviction and a remand for further proceedings.”

Affirmed in part, and Vacated in part.

09-1500, 09-1525, 09-1875 & 09-2431 U.S. v. Pineda-Buenaventura

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, Crabb, J., Williams, J.

Full Text