United States v. Gramajo-Giron
694 F. App'x 656
| 10th Cir. | 2017Background
- Gramajo-Giron pleaded guilty to unlawful reentry after prior removals via a written plea petition and thorough plea colloquy; he acknowledged waiving constitutional rights and was satisfied with counsel.
- Presentence Report calculated a Guidelines range of 30–37 months (total offense level 13, criminal-history category V) based on a base level of 8, an 8-level enhancement for a prior felony, and a 3-level acceptance reduction.
- At sentencing, defense sought downward consideration due to family caregiving; the court ultimately imposed 30 months (the bottom of the Guidelines range).
- Counsel filed an Anders brief seeking leave to withdraw, identifying and analyzing potential appeal issues but concluding any appeal would be frivolous; Gramajo-Giron did not file a pro se brief.
- The government argued the sentence was procedurally and substantively reasonable and that the guilty plea was knowing and voluntary; the Tenth Circuit reviewed the record independently.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedural and substantive reasonableness of sentence | Sentence was excessive or improperly explained | District court correctly calculated Guidelines and considered §3553(a) factors | Affirmed: sentence within Guidelines and presumed reasonable; no abuse of discretion |
| Validity of guilty plea (knowing and voluntary) | Possible plea defects/guilt-related challenges | Plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered via written petition and colloquy | Rejected: plea valid; non-jurisdictional challenges waived |
| Adequacy of counsel's Anders submission and right to withdraw | Counsel’s Anders brief identified issues but argued appeal frivolous | Anders procedure followed; defendant given brief; no pro se brief filed | Grant withdrawal and dismiss appeal: court found appeal frivolous |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (procedure for counsel to withdraw when appeal is frivolous)
- United States v. Washington, 634 F.3d 1180 (10th Cir. 2011) (standard of review for sentencing reasonableness)
- United States v. Alapizco-Valenzuela, 546 F.3d 1208 (10th Cir. 2008) (procedural vs. substantive sentencing review)
- United States v. Sutton, 520 F.3d 1259 (10th Cir. 2008) (presumption of reasonableness for within-Guidelines sentences)
- United States v. Wright, 43 F.3d 491 (10th Cir. 1994) (guilty plea waives nonjurisdictional challenges)
- United States v. Jim, 786 F.3d 802 (10th Cir. 2015) (standards for knowing and voluntary guilty plea)