Summaries of Selected Opinions
| Publication year | 2022 |
| Pages | 74 |
FROM THE COURTS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
No. 20-5089. United States v. Mcintosh.
3/21/2022. N.D.Okla. Judge Ebel. Knowing and Voluntary Guilty Plea—Motion to Withdraw Plea—Procedural Due Process.
Defendant was charged with five counts of Hobbs Act robbery and five counts of brandishing a firearm during the robberies. He was diagnosed with substance abuse disorders but was found competent to stand trial. About one month before trial, defendant notified the court that he intended to accept a plea deal and plead guilty to eight of the charges. However, at the beginning of the change-in-plea hearing, defendant expressed doubts about the agreement, claiming that he was being denied access to his medications and his judgment was consequently impaired. After an off-the-record conference, defendant's counsel informed the court that defendant changed his mind and wished to go to trial. But following a second conference between the prosecution and defense counsel, defendant again indicated his willingness to proceed with the plea agreement. He then pleaded guilty, and the court accepted the plea. However, before sentencing, defendant filed a motion to withdraw his plea, contending that it was neither knowing nor voluntary. The court denied the motion and sentenced defendant to 25 years' imprisonment.
On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's acceptance of the plea and its subsequent denial of the motion to withdraw the plea The Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause requires that a defendant knowingly and voluntarily enter a plea of guilty. Fed. R. Crim. Proc. 11(b) governs a federal district court's duties in voluntariness determinations. Where the district court is made aware during a plea proceeding that a defendant may be experiencing a mental illness, it must consider that fact in its voluntariness determination. The extent to which the claimed mental disorder affects voluntariness depends on the totality of the circumstances, and the district court's response under Rule 11 must address the specifics of the situation. Here, defendant told the district court that he had not been taking his medications and specifically indicated that the absence of those medications was impairing his judgment, but the district court failed to meaningfully investigate defendant's statements by not asking follow-up questions about his medication, his underlying illness, or the effects of his not taking his medication. Consequently, it was never established that defendant entered his plea knowingly and voluntarily.
Defendant also argued that his plea was involuntary because he was overcome by mental coercion from the government and the district court's conduct during the hearing. However, a district court does not have to reject a plea with Dulayev's appeal. Pendent appellate jurisdiction is a narrow extension of a court's jurisdiction and is generally disfavored. In cases where the Tenth Circuit resolved a claim under the clearly established prong of the qualified immunity defense, it has repeatedly declined to exercise pendent appellate jurisdiction over the municipal liability claim. Accordingly, the Tenth Circuit declined to exercise pendent appellate jurisdiction here.
The denial of summary judgment with respect to Dulayev was reversed and the case was remanded with instructions to grant Dulayev qualified immunity and enter judgment in Dulayev's favor, and for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
No. 20-2083. United States v. Chavez. 3/29/2022. D.N.M. Judge Eid. Attempted Federal Bank Robbery—Forced Withdrawal of Money from ATM—Legal Impossibility Defense.
Armed with a rifle, defendant ran up to the passenger side of an occupied vehicle parked at an ATM. The ATM was not located on the premises of a bank branch. Defendant demand-ed money from the two vehicle occupants, but they did not have any cash. Defendant then demanded that they put a bank card into the ATM and make a withdrawal. The occupants claimed they could not make a withdrawal due to insufficient funds. A law enforcement officer then arrived on scene, and defendant was later arrested.
A six-count indictment issued, two of which were at issue in this appeal. Count 5 charged defendant with attempted robbery of U.S. currency belonging to and in the care, custody, control, management, and possession of a bank, and putting the life of another person in...
To continue reading
Request your trial