United States v. Davila-Ruiz
790 F.3d 249
1st Cir.2015Background
- Plea withdrawal before court acceptance is at issue; magistrate judge conducted Rule 11 hearing with defendant waiving jury trial and consenting to magistrate handling.
- Magistrate judge recommended acceptance of the plea; district court later failed to adopt the R&R and accept the plea.
- Defendant moved to withdraw his plea under Rule 11(d)(1) before the district court accepted the plea, arguing absolute right to withdraw.
- District court rejected withdrawal, holding Rule 11(d)(1) did not apply because acceptance occurred after the R&R was issued.
- Court held the plea was not accepted when the magistrate judge recommended acceptance; district court delay in acting violated Rule 11(d)(1) and allowed withdrawal.
- The case is remanded with directions to grant withdrawal and proceed consistently with this opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 11(d)(1) provides an absolute right to withdraw before acceptance. | Govt: acceptance occurred; thus Rule 11(d)(1) not applicable. | Dávila-Ruiz: before acceptance, withdrawal must be allowed for any reason. | Rule 11(d)(1) gives absolute right to withdraw before acceptance. |
| Whether magistrate judge’s recommendation, without actually accepting the plea, ends the defendant’s Rule 11(d)(1) protections. | Govt: recommendation plus district action suffices. | Dávila-Ruiz: acceptance not achieved by magistrate; right remains. | Acceptance requires district court action; protections remain until acceptance. |
| Whether district court’s delay in acting on the R&R violated Rule 11(d)(1). | Govt: delay not material since acceptance pending. | Dávila-Ruiz: delay nullified protections of Rule 11(d)(1). | Delay violated Rule 11(d)(1), allowing withdrawal. |
| Whether Waiver and magistrate handling affected the applicability of Rule 11(d)(1). | Govt: Waiver and magistrate handling imply acceptance. | Dávila-Ruiz: waiver does not equate to magistrate acceptance. | Waiver does not negate Rule 11(d)(1) protections. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Arami, 536 F.3d 479 (5th Cir. 2008) (Rule 11(d)(1) applicability before acceptance; magistrate role clarified)
- United States v. Torres-Rosario, 447 F.3d 61 (1st Cir. 2006) (Review standard for plea-withdrawal; delay consequences)
- United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2003) (En banc; treatment of magistrate recommendations in plea process)
- United States v. Jones, 472 F.3d 892 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (Acceptance mechanics when magistrate recommends but district court retains power)