United States v. Armando Antonio Castro
736 F.3d 1308
| 11th Cir. | 2013Background
- Castro was indicted on multiple drug- and firearm-related counts and negotiated a written plea agreement to plead guilty to seven counts in exchange for dismissal of others and recommendations for sentence reductions.
- At a scheduled change-of-plea hearing Castro initially renounced the plea, complained about counsel, and said he did not want to plead guilty or be represented by his retained attorney.
- The district court, at defense counsel’s request, warned Castro that if he did not plead that day the government might withdraw the plea offer and charge him with additional counts that could increase his sentence; immediately afterward Castro pleaded guilty, signed the plea, and admitted the factual proffer.
- Castro was sentenced to 156 months; post-judgment he moved to withdraw his plea on various grounds and then appealed claiming the district court’s comment violated Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1) by participating in plea discussions.
- The panel initially vacated the plea under Eleventh Circuit precedent forbidding judicial participation, but after the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Davila (which replaced automatic vacatur with a harmless-error/plain-error assessment), the panel reheard the appeal and affirmed Castro’s convictions because the full record did not show it was reasonably probable that, but for the court’s comment, Castro would have gone to trial.
Issues
| Issue | Castro's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court’s comment constituted unlawful judicial participation in plea discussions under Rule 11(c)(1) and thus plain error | The court’s exhortation that declining to plead that day could lead to worse charges coerced him into pleading guilty | The comment did not cause prejudice and Castro cannot meet plain-error burden because he signed the written plea and affirmed voluntariness | The remark was error under Rule 11(c)(1) but Castro failed to show, on the full record, a reasonable probability he would have gone to trial but for the comment; convictions affirmed |
| Whether automatic vacatur applies after judicial participation in plea discussions | Automatic vacatur required under prior Eleventh Circuit precedent | Davila disapproved automatic vacatur; review requires harmless/plain-error analysis considering the full record | Automatic vacatur abrogated by Davila; harmless/plain-error review applies |
| Whether Castro’s signed plea colloquy and admissions defeat a claim of prejudice from judicial participation | Castro contends his immediate change from refusal to guilty shows the court’s comment influenced him | Government argues Castro’s written plea, sworn statements, and tactical behavior (avoiding severe mandatory consecutive exposure) indicate plea was voluntary and strategic | Court held sworn admissions and the benefits avoided by pleading (e.g., dismissal of a 25-year consecutive §924(c) count) support that prejudice was not established |
| Burden and standard on plain-error review for unobjected Rule 11(c)(1) violations | Castro argues the single comment was dispositive given timing | Government emphasizes the heavy burden on a silent defendant to prove substantial-rights prejudice under Dominguez Benitez/Davila | The court applied Davila/Dominguez Benitez plain-error standard and found Castro did not meet his burden |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Davila, 569 U.S. 597 (2013) (Rule 11(c)(1) violations reviewed for prejudice using the full record; automatic vacatur rejected)
- United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74 (2004) (plain-error framework for unobjected-to plea errors; defendant must show reasonable probability the error affected decision)
- Vonn v. United States, 535 U.S. 55 (2002) (appellate review of Rule 11 error informed by entire record, including pre- and post-error events)
- United States v. Casallas, 59 F.3d 1173 (11th Cir. 1995) (Eleventh Circuit precedent forbidding judicial participation in plea discussions; previously required vacatur)
- United States v. Rodriguez, 398 F.3d 1291 (11th Cir. 2005) (explains burden on defendant to show error made a difference and that equally plausible alternate explanations defeat prejudice)