United States v. Guadalupe Velazquez
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 7674
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Guadalupe Velazquez, implicated in a multi-defendant drug- and money‑laundering conspiracy, was represented initially by appointed counsel Kenneth Countryman after a prior appointed lawyer withdrew.
- Countryman missed deadlines, allegedly failed to review discovery, rarely met with Velazquez, and (per Velazquez) his paralegal engaged in intimidation; Velazquez recorded some meetings and filed two pro se motions requesting substitute counsel with exhibits.
- Magistrate Judge hearings on December 10–11 featured heated exchanges: Velazquez repeatedly complained she had not adequately consulted Countryman about a plea offer that had an imminent deadline; the magistrate strongly discussed the plea’s risks and benefits and suggested a plea was preferable.
- At a December 11 change‑of‑plea colloquy, after off‑the‑record conferrals, Velazquez stated she was satisfied with Countryman and entered a guilty plea that included an appeal waiver. The district judge later denied her December 10 motion for new counsel without holding an evidentiary hearing, citing her on‑the‑record satisfaction.
- Velazquez subsequently retained counsel who did not withdraw the plea; she appealed, arguing constructive denial of counsel because the court failed to adequately inquire into her substitution requests and that the magistrate’s plea discussions coerced her expressed satisfaction.
Issues
| Issue | Velazquez's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plea waiver bars appeal | Waiver unenforceable because plea was tainted by constructive denial of counsel and Rule 11 problems | Waiver valid; her December 11 statements show voluntariness and satisfaction | Waiver unenforceable — must assess plea validity because constructive denial claim goes to plea’s enforceability |
| Whether denial of motions for substitute counsel abused discretion | Court failed to conduct adequate inquiry despite detailed, timely allegations of breakdown and misconduct; denial caused constructive denial of counsel | Meetings on Dec 10–11 remedied the conflict; statements at colloquy show resolution | Court abused discretion: no meaningful inquiry, serious breakdown, timely motions — constructive denial of counsel requiring vacatur of plea |
| Adequacy of district court’s inquiry into substitution request | Required probing inquiry; judge failed to question parties, hold hearing, or examine exhibits | District court relied on on‑the‑record plea colloquy and Velazquez’s stated satisfaction | Inquiry inadequate: precedent favors probing when conflict alleged; lack of meaningful inquiry weighed for defendant |
| Whether magistrate’s involvement and colloquy cured coercion | Velazquez contends magistrate’s plea‑oriented statements coerced her affirmation of satisfaction, so post‑meeting statements are unreliable | Government contends December 10–11 meetings resolved issues and statements are reliable | Magistrate’s heavy participation created substantial risk of coercion; Dec 11 statements deemed unreliable to cure earlier constructive denial |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Portillo-Cano, 192 F.3d 1246 (9th Cir. 1999) (appeal waivers stand or fall with the plea agreement; court must determine plea validity to enforce waiver)
- Martel v. Clair, 565 U.S. 648 (2012) (courts generally must probe reasons for substitution requests)
- United States v. Musa, 220 F.3d 1096 (9th Cir. 2000) (error where court made no inquiry into substitution request)
- United States v. Gonzalez, 113 F.3d 1026 (9th Cir. 1997) (abuse of discretion to refuse evidentiary hearing on substitution motion)
- Daniels v. Woodford, 428 F.3d 1181 (9th Cir. 2005) (constructive denial when defendant legitimately loses trust and court refuses to remove counsel)
- United States v. Adelzo-Gonzalez, 268 F.3d 772 (9th Cir. 2001) (inadequate inquiry where obvious antagonism existed; emphasized probing the attorney-client relationship)
- United States v. Moore, 159 F.3d 1154 (9th Cir. 1998) (no prejudice needed when relationship breakdown results in complete denial of counsel)
- Perry v. Leeke, 488 U.S. 272 (1989) (actual or constructive denial of counsel not subject to prejudice analysis)
- Missouri v. Frye, 566 U.S. 133 (2012) (Sixth Amendment right to effective counsel extends to plea‑bargaining stage)
- United States v. Anderson, 993 F.2d 1435 (9th Cir. 1993) (judicial participation in plea discussions can render subsequent plea involuntary)
- United States v. Bruce, 976 F.2d 552 (9th Cir. 1992) (judge’s involvement in plea negotiation risks coercion and can invalidate plea)