887 F.3d 41
1st Cir.2018Background
- Mejía was indicted for two counts of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and heroin; drugs were transported via co-conspirators and a government informant.
- He was represented sequentially by three attorneys (Rivera, Zayas, then González); multiple plea negotiations occurred, with no plea agreement at the time of the ultimate change-of-plea hearing.
- At the change-of-plea colloquy Mejía disclosed he took medications (for blood pressure, cholesterol, depression, and sleep), said he felt "physically and mentally" fine, and pleaded guilty without a plea agreement.
- After pleading, Mejía filed motions to withdraw his plea and for substitute counsel (third counsel, González); the district court denied the motions after asking Mejía to specify complaints, which he failed to do concretely.
- At sentencing the court reviewed the PSR with Mejía; González advocated for the statutory minimum and Mejía was sentenced to 121 months.
- Mejía appealed, arguing (1) insufficient inquiry into medications under Rule 11 and (2) abuse of discretion in denying his third motion for substitute counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of medication inquiry under Rule 11 | Mejía: court failed to probe whether meds affected voluntariness and competency to plead | Government/court: judge asked follow-ups (purpose, timing, frequency), observed demeanor, defendant said he felt fine, no signs meds impaired him | No plain error; inquiry and colloquy were sufficient and Mejía's assurances and performance supported competency to plead |
| Denial of third motion for substitute counsel (Sixth Amendment) | Mejía: breakdown of trust and alleged conflict of interest justified new counsel | Government/court: court conducted thorough inquiry; complaints were vague; González continued to represent zealously and lack of cooperation was Mejía's own choice | No abuse of discretion; no showing of total lack of communication or concrete conflict of interest |
Key Cases Cited
- Cody v. United States, 249 F.3d 47 (1st Cir. 2001) (court must inquire when defendant confirms medication use in Rule 11 colloquy)
- United States v. Kenney, 756 F.3d 36 (1st Cir. 2014) (no settled rule requiring precise drug names and doses in every inquiry)
- Savinon-Acosta v. United States, 232 F.3d 265 (1st Cir. 2000) (defendant's colloquy performance can confirm voluntariness)
- United States v. Parra-Ibañez, 936 F.2d 588 (1st Cir. 1991) (failure to explore acknowledged prescription use may be error where facts suggest impairment)
- United States v. Llanos-Falero, 847 F.3d 29 (1st Cir. 2017) (clarifies Parra-Ibañez: key is whether any medication may affect capacity)
- United States v. Mescual-Cruz, 387 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2004) (plain-error review for unobjected-to Rule 11 errors)
- United States v. Delgado-Hernández, 420 F.3d 16 (1st Cir. 2005) (plain-error framework)
- United States v. Duarte, 246 F.3d 56 (1st Cir. 2001) (plain-error standard articulation)
- United States v. Morrisette, 429 F.3d 318 (1st Cir. 2005) (court may rely on observed demeanor to find competency)
- United States v. Karmue, 841 F.3d 24 (1st Cir. 2016) (abuse-of-discretion review for substitute-counsel denials)
- United States v. Jones, 778 F.3d 375 (1st Cir. 2015) (Sixth Amendment counsel-of-choice limits)
- United States v. Díaz-Rodríguez, 745 F.3d 586 (1st Cir. 2014) (accused's opportunity to obtain counsel of choice is important but not absolute)
- United States v. Panzardi Alvarez, 816 F.2d 813 (1st Cir. 1987) (limits on right to counsel of choice)
- United States v. Kar, 851 F.3d 59 (1st Cir. 2017) (three-factor test for substitute counsel motions)
- United States v. Francois, 715 F.3d 21 (1st Cir. 2013) (same three-factor framework)
- United States v. Woodard, 291 F.3d 95 (1st Cir. 2002) (failure to file meritless motion not good cause for substitution)
- United States v. Allen, 789 F.2d 90 (1st Cir. 1986) (adequacy of court's inquiry into counsel complaints)
- United States v. Myers, 294 F.3d 203 (1st Cir. 2002) (denial of substitute counsel acceptable where attorney continues effective representation)
- United States v. Reyes, 352 F.3d 511 (1st Cir. 2003) (defendant cannot force new counsel by refusing to communicate)
Affirmed.