United States v. Mario Carbajal
699 F. App'x 572
| 7th Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant Mario Barjas Carbajal sexually abused his stepdaughter from ages 7 to 14, impregnating her three times and assaulting her repeatedly; he fled to evade authorities.
- Carbajal pleaded guilty to crossing state lines with intent to engage in a sexual act with a minor under 12, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2241(c).
- At plea colloquy, proceedings were conducted with a translator; the court explained charges, rights, and potential penalties (30 years minimum to life maximum) and established a factual basis.
- The district court sentenced Carbajal to 55 years’ imprisonment, below the correctly calculated Guidelines term (life), and below the statutory maximum of life.
- Carbajal’s appointed appellate counsel moved to withdraw under Anders, asserting the appeal was frivolous; Carbajal opposed and argued among other things that his plea was not knowing and voluntary and that the court failed to advise him of consular rights.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Voluntariness/knowing nature of plea | Counsel (appellate) contends no meritorious challenge; plea was knowing and voluntary. | Carbajal claims language barrier/misunderstanding and belief he would receive ~10 years, not a "draconian" term. | Court: Plea colloquy satisfied Rule 11; defendant understood rights and penalties; any omission (perjury warning) harmless. |
| Failure to advise of consular rights under Vienna Convention | Government obligation rests with arresting authorities, not the court; no error by judge. | Carbajal argues he should have been informed of right to contact Mexican consulate. | Court: Frivolous to blame district court; Vienna Convention notice obligation is on arresting authority. |
| Reasonableness of 55-year sentence | Government/appellate counsel: below-Guidelines sentence presumed reasonable. | Carbajal seeks sentencing challenge as excessive. | Court: Sentence reasonable; district court considered §3553(a) factors and justified below-Guidelines 55-year term. |
| Counsel's Anders motion to withdraw | Counsel: thorough review shows no non-frivolous issues; seeks leave. | Carbajal opposed withdrawal and pursued identified claims. | Court: Grants motion to withdraw and dismisses the appeal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (procedure for appointed counsel to move to withdraw when appeal is frivolous)
- Konczak v. United States, 683 F.3d 348 (7th Cir. 2012) (standards for pleading challenges)
- Knox v. United States, 287 F.3d 667 (7th Cir. 2002) (plea-validity review)
- Bey v. United States, 748 F.3d 774 (7th Cir. 2014) (limiting appellate review to issues discussed in Anders brief)
- Wagner v. United States, 103 F.3d 551 (7th Cir. 1996) (appellate procedures for Anders briefs)
- Davenport v. United States, 719 F.3d 616 (7th Cir. 2013) (Rule 11 plea-colloquy requirements)
- Blalock v. United States, 321 F.3d 686 (7th Cir. 2003) (harmless error for omitted perjury warning when no prosecution pending)
- Graves v. United States, 98 F.3d 258 (7th Cir. 1996) (Rule 11 harmless-error principles)
- Mordi v. Ziegler, 770 F.3d 1161 (7th Cir. 2014) (Vienna Convention notice principles)
- Sandoval v. United States, 574 F.3d 847 (7th Cir. 2009) (arresting authority’s obligation under Vienna Convention)
- Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007) (presumption of reasonableness for within-Guidelines sentences)
- Mbaye v. United States, 827 F.3d 617 (7th Cir. 2016) (application of sentence-presumption principles)