United States v. Daniel Pacheco-Morales
703 F. App'x 116
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- Daniel Pacheco-Morales was indicted for conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute heroin, cocaine, and cocaine base; on the morning of trial he pleaded guilty after the government agreed to drop the 280-gram cocaine allegation that would have increased his sentence.
- During the Rule 11 colloquy the court, with interpreter present, advised Morales of charges, rights, and that he was waiving a jury trial; Morales stated he understood and confirmed counsel had reviewed the information with him.
- Nine days after pleading guilty Morales filed a pro se motion to withdraw his plea, alleging he had been misinformed by counsel, did not understand he was pleading guilty, and that the interpreter failed to translate documents; he also filed a notice asserting ineffective assistance of counsel.
- New counsel renewed the motion to withdraw; the District Court denied the motion and sentenced Morales after the Presentence Report classified him as a career offender based on several prior Pennsylvania drug convictions.
- Morales appealed the denial of his motion to withdraw and the career‑offender classification; counsel filed an Anders brief asserting no nonfrivolous issues for appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Morales) | Defendant's Argument (Government/District Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court erred in denying motion to withdraw guilty plea | Morales says plea was unknowing/coerced, counsel failed to tell him he was pleading guilty, interpreter didn’t translate documents, and he preserves innocence | Court argues Rule 11 colloquy corrected any counsel errors; Morales made only bald assertion of innocence and offered no factual support | Denial affirmed: no fair and just reason shown; plea was knowing and voluntary |
| Whether prior convictions could be used to classify Morales as a career offender | Morales contends prior convictions were too old, statute 35 Pa. Stat. §780-113(a)(30) is overbroad/not divisible, and Shepard limits use of certain documents; also alleges ineffective assistance for failing to challenge classification | Government shows relevant convictions fell within 15-year rule and were proper to consider; statute is divisible per Third Circuit precedent; proffered Shepard‑type documents were available; ineffective-assistance claim deferred to collateral review | Classification affirmed; statute is divisible; no plain error on Shepard issue; ineffective-assistance claim not resolved on direct appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (establishes counsel’s duties when seeking leave to withdraw on grounds appeal is frivolous)
- Jones v. United States, 336 F.3d 245 (3d Cir.) (factors for evaluating pre-sentencing plea-withdrawal motions)
- Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (limits documents a sentencing court may consult when applying modified categorical approach)
- Descamps v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2276 (clarifies divisible vs. indivisible statute analysis under modified categorical approach)
- United States v. Abbott, 748 F.3d 154 (3d Cir.) (holds Pennsylvania §780-113(a)(30) is divisible)
- Marvin v. Atlantic Research, 211 F.3d 778 (3d Cir.) (Anders brief obligations summarized in Third Circuit practice)
- Youla v. United States, 241 F.3d 296 (3d Cir.) (review of Anders compliance and independent review requirement)
- Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (addresses categorical/modified categorical approach distinctions)
- Thornton v. United States, 327 F.3d 268 (3d Cir.) (when ineffective-assistance claims may be decided on direct appeal)
- Singh v. Attorney General, 839 F.3d 273 (3d Cir.) (confirmed Abbott’s holding as consistent after Mathis)