United States v. Diaz-Ramirez
646 F.3d 653
| 9th Cir. | 2011Background
- Diaz-Ramirez and Figueroa-Romero were charged with illegal entry under 8 U.S.C. § 1325 and appeared at a large group plea hearing in the District of Arizona as part of Operation Streamline.
- The proceeding combined initial appearances, pleas, and sentencing for roughly 67 defendants, with 17 different attorneys; Diaz and Figueroa were represented by the same assistant federal public defender.
- Defendants listened via headphones to a Spanish-language translation of the proceedings; the judge addressed the group collectively and asked questions to the group as a whole.
- The judge informed the group of rights, charges, and consequences, receiving general affirmative responses from the group; individuals were asked if they wished to have a trial and to stand if they had questions.
- Diaz and Figueroa individually pleaded guilty after the group portion, with both receiving time served and orders to be returned to Mexico; neither objected during the plea proceeding.
- Diaz and Figueroa later challenged the convictions in district court on the theory that the large-group plea violated due process and Boykin rights; the district court rejected these challenges and the appeals were consolidated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether en masse pleas violated due process under Boykin. | Diaz/Figueroa argue the group setting failed individualized understanding. | Diaz/Figueroa contend general 'yes' responses prove no intelligent waiver. | Not violated; record shows intelligible pleas despite group format. |
| What standard governs review of a constitutional claim raised without objection at trial. | Diaz/Figueroa rely on plain-error review requiring a silent record. | Diaz/Figueroa argue Boykin-based strict scrutiny applies regardless of objection. | Plain-error review applies; no plain error shown because the record evidences voluntariness. |
| Whether the record affirmatively shows the pleas were intelligent and voluntary. | Group setting plus silent record questions cast doubt on understanding. | Counsel presence, explicit rights/ consequences, and affirmative group responses indicate awareness. | Record supports voluntariness; no due process violation. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Roblero-Solis, 588 F.3d 692 (9th Cir. 2009) (group plea procedure may violate Rule 11; personal address required)
- Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (U.S. 1969) (records must show intelligent, voluntary waiver of rights)
- Bradshaw v. Stumpf, 545 U.S. 175 (U.S. 2005) (counsel can satisfy Boykin rights by explaining charges/elements)
- United States v. Carroll, 932 F.2d 823 (9th Cir. 1991) (Boykin rights need not be expressly waived by each waiver)
- Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461 (U.S. 1997) (plain-error review requires show of effect on substantial rights)