962 F.3d 1096
9th Cir.2020Background
- Jamal Shehadeh pleaded guilty to two counts of arson on February 9–10, 2018; the plea agreement included government promises not to charge his wife or sister for witness tampering and not to pursue forfeiture against his ex-wife’s house.
- At the Rule 11 colloquy Shehadeh affirmed the plea was voluntary and acknowledged an appellate-waiver for sentences up to 30 years.
- The district court entered judgment on February 14, 2018, sentencing Shehadeh to the mandatory 30-year custodial term and deferring a restitution determination.
- Shehadeh moved to withdraw his guilty plea roughly two months later; the district court denied relief for lack of jurisdiction (it said sentencing had occurred).
- The district court entered an amended judgment ordering restitution on October 9, 2018; Shehadeh filed a notice of appeal the next day.
- The Ninth Circuit held the appeal timely, ruled the district court did have jurisdiction to entertain a pre-amended-judgment withdrawal motion, affirmed denial of withdrawal because the plea was knowing and voluntary, and rejected other claims as waived or unsuitable for first-time appellate review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of appeal | Shehadeh: notice filed within 14 days of amended judgment ordering restitution is timely | Government: appeal should have been filed within 14 days of initial custodial judgment | Timely: when restitution is deferred, defendant may appeal either within 14 days of initial custodial sentence or within 14 days of the amended judgment with restitution; here appeal was timely |
| Jurisdiction to hear motion to withdraw plea | Shehadeh: court retained jurisdiction to allow withdrawal until final restitution order | Government/district court: sentencing occurred earlier so court lacked jurisdiction to allow withdrawal | Jurisdiction existed: deferral of restitution means sentence not final; court could have considered withdrawal before restitution was ordered |
| Voluntariness / coercion (motion to withdraw) | Shehadeh: plea coerced by threats to prosecute family/forfeit property and by a health episode (fainting/stroke) | Government: Rule 11 colloquy and government statements show plea was voluntary; medical evidence does not indicate impairment | Denied: no plain error; plea was knowing and voluntary based on colloquy and record; district court did not err in denying withdrawal |
| Waiver and ineffective-assistance claim | Shehadeh: raises Sixth Amendment and Rule 32 objections and claims counsel failed to file appeal | Government: appellate-waiver bars these claims; ineffective-assistance inappropriate on direct appeal | Waiver/enforcement: appellate waiver knowingly made and bars remaining claims; ineffective-assistance not considered on direct appeal—should be raised via habeas |
Key Cases Cited
- Manrique v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1266 (2017) (addressing effect of a single notice of appeal when restitution is deferred)
- Corey v. United States, 375 U.S. 169 (1963) (defendant may await final sentencing after diagnostic period before appealing)
- Dolan v. United States, 560 U.S. 605 (2010) (initial and amended judgments are separately appealable)
- United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005) (Sentencing Guidelines are advisory)
- Rosales-Mireles v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1897 (2018) (plain-error standard and effect on substantial rights)
- United States v. Aguilar-Reyes, 653 F.3d 1053 (9th Cir. 2011) (standard of review for jurisdiction to permit plea withdrawal)
- United States v. Joyce, 357 F.3d 921 (9th Cir. 2004) (standards for enforcing appellate waivers)