United States v. Junior Vargas-Guzman
676 F. App'x 370
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant Junior Rafael Vargas-Guzman pleaded guilty to illegal reentry after deportation (8 U.S.C. § 1326) in district court.
- After the district court accepted the plea, Vargas-Guzman moved to withdraw his guilty plea approximately 33 days later, pro se.
- He argued withdrawal was warranted partly because he could collaterally attack his prior deportation (asserting innocence or defective removal).
- The district court found the plea knowing and voluntary, counsel had provided close assistance, and determined a jury trial would waste judicial resources.
- The district court denied the motion to withdraw; Vargas-Guzman appealed the denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court abused discretion in denying motion to withdraw plea | Vargas-Guzman argued he had a fair and just reason to withdraw (could challenge deportation; asserted innocence) | Government argued plea was knowing/voluntary, no showing of likely success in collateral attack, and withdrawal would burden court resources | Denial affirmed — no abuse of discretion; defendant failed to show fair and just reason |
| Whether defendant demonstrated likelihood of success on collateral attack of deportation | Vargas-Guzman contended he could mount a successful §1326(d) collateral attack | Government noted no showing in district court or on appeal that §1326(d) requirements would be met | Court held defendant did not show likely success on collateral attack; argument lacked merit |
| Whether plea was knowing and voluntary and counsel assisted adequately | Vargas-Guzman implied counsel ineffective or plea was involuntary | Record showed close assistance of counsel and that plea was knowing and voluntary | Court found these factors weighed against allowing withdrawal |
| Whether delay and judicial resources considerations weigh against withdrawal | Vargas-Guzman filed pro se after ~33 days and said trial would be simple | Government emphasized inconvenience and resource burden; district court was best positioned to assess resource impact | Court gave deference to district court; delay and resource concerns weighed against withdrawal |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Conroy, 567 F.3d 174 (5th Cir.) (standard that there is no absolute right to withdraw a plea after acceptance)
- United States v. Carr, 740 F.2d 339 (5th Cir.) (factors for evaluating Rule 11 withdrawal motions)
- United States v. Brewster, 137 F.3d 853 (5th Cir.) (burden on defendant to show fair and just reason to withdraw plea)
- United States v. McKnight, 570 F.3d 641 (5th Cir.) (review standard and deference to district court on resources and prejudice)
- United States v. Mendoza-Mata, 322 F.3d 829 (5th Cir.) (requirements for collateral attack under §1326(d))
- United States v. Urias-Marrufo, 744 F.3d 361 (5th Cir.) (Carr factors are non-exclusive)