United States v. Enrique Trevino
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 12922
| 8th Cir. | 2016Background
- Enrique Roberto Trevino pleaded guilty in April 2014 to conspiring to distribute >50 kg of marijuana; no plea agreement. Sentencing range initially 188–235 months per PSR, later revised to 121–151 months; court sentenced him to 120 months.
- Trevino filed objections to the PSR (drug quantity, stash house, leadership enhancement) and, on the eve of sentencing, moved to withdraw his guilty plea asserting ineffective assistance and lack of understanding.
- Appointed counsel Arturo Hernandez moved to withdraw claiming an ethical conflict arising from Trevino’s Motion To Withdraw the plea; the district court denied both motions after hearings in March 2015.
- At the change-of-plea hearing Trevino affirmed he was satisfied with counsel, understood the rights he was waiving, and that sentencing guidelines would apply; these statements contradicted his later ineffective-assistance claims.
- After a brief continuance to confer with counsel, Trevino withdrew most objections to drug-quantity calculations (but not enhancements); the court heard testimony, overruled the remaining objections, adopted the PSR drug-quantity, and granted a three-level acceptance reduction.
- Trevino appealed, arguing the court erred in denying plea withdrawal, appointing substitute counsel, and in adopting the PSR’s drug-quantity calculation; the Eighth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Trevino's Argument | Government/Court's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court abused discretion by denying motion to withdraw guilty plea | Plea was entered without meaningful advice of counsel and without full understanding; ineffective assistance warrants withdrawal | Rule 11 colloquy showed Trevino was informed and satisfied with counsel; no factual record of ineffective assistance; claims contradicted by sworn statements | Denial affirmed: no fair and just reason; no abuse of discretion |
| Whether court should have appointed substitute counsel | Hernandez had an ethical conflict and communications broke down after Motion To Withdraw, warranting new counsel | No irreconcilable conflict or complete breakdown; Hernandez continued zealous representation; last-minute substitution disfavored | Denial affirmed: no justifiable dissatisfaction or conflict |
| Whether district court erred in adopting PSR drug-quantity (double counting, cash counted twice, failure to reduce cocaine estimate) | PSR double-counted witnesses’ cocaine estimates and cash, and misapplied percentage reduction | Trevino withdrew his objections to drug quantity; facts in PSR not specifically contested are deemed admitted; court properly warned about frivolous objections affecting acceptance credit | Denial affirmed: adoption proper; withdrawn objections preclude appellate challenge |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Cruz, 643 F.3d 639 (8th Cir. 2011) (standard of review for plea-withdrawal denials)
- United States v. Wicker, 80 F.3d 263 (8th Cir. 1996) (‘fair and just’ standard for plea withdrawal is liberal but not automatic)
- United States v. Gomez, 326 F.3d 971 (8th Cir. 2003) (statements under oath at plea hearing rebut later ineffective-assistance claims)
- United States v. Norvell, 729 F.3d 788 (8th Cir. 2013) (failure to assert objections at plea hearing undermines ineffective-assistance claims)
- United States v. Payton, 260 F.3d 898 (8th Cir. 2001) (ineffective-assistance claims first raised in plea-withdrawal motion are untimely)
- United States v. McMullen, 86 F.3d 135 (8th Cir. 1996) (ineffective assistance can justify plea withdrawal only if deficient performance and prejudice shown)
- United States v. Mugan, 441 F.3d 622 (8th Cir. 2006) (such claims ordinarily reviewed in collateral proceedings when no factual record developed)
- United States v. Morrison, 967 F.2d 264 (8th Cir. 1992) (no evidentiary hearing required where allegations are inherently unreliable or lack specific facts)
- United States v. Rodriguez, 612 F.3d 1049 (8th Cir. 2010) (last-minute requests to substitute counsel are disfavored; court must inquire into complaints)
- United States v. Barrow, 287 F.3d 733 (8th Cir. 2002) (continued zealous representation undermines claims of justifiable dissatisfaction)
- United States v. Abrica-Sanchez, 808 F.3d 330 (8th Cir. 2015) (facts in PSR not specifically objected to are admitted)
- United States v. Thompson, 289 F.3d 524 (8th Cir. 2002) (defendant precluded from arguing withdrawn objections on appeal)
- United States v. Johnson, 906 F.2d 1285 (8th Cir. 1990) (sentencing court has wide deference in assessing acceptance of responsibility)