United States v. Mendez-Santana
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 10172
| 6th Cir. | 2011Background
- Mendez-Santana, a Mexican citizen, was deported in 1987 and again in 1994 after a rape conviction; he reentered illegally a third time using aliases to avoid detection.
- In 2000, he pled guilty in Michigan state court to a felony under the alias Mauro Mendez-Santana and received jail time with probation.
- A federal agent later matched the alias to Mendez-Santana and related identifiers, yet a different agent processed him for removal as if never deported.
- In 2001 an immigration judge granted voluntary departure, order to leave by May 29, 2001, which he did not obey; he was later apprehended in February 2008.
- In July 2008, he pled guilty to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a)(2) & (b)(2) in an open plea; the district court deferred accepting the plea pending presentence report review.
- Before sentencing, Mendez-Santana moved to withdraw his guilty plea and to dismiss the indictment as time-barred; the district court denied the motion in full.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rule 11(d)(1) right to withdraw unaccepted plea | Mendez-Santana had an absolute right to withdraw before acceptance. | State argued limitations issue and that withdrawal could be denied. | Unaccepted plea may be withdrawn as a matter of right; district court abused its discretion by denying. |
| Was the withdrawal conditioned on success of the dismissal motion | Mendez-Santana sought withdrawal independently of dismissal success. | withdrawal was effectively conditioned on dismissal. | Withdrawal not conditioned on dismissal; court erred by denying it based on other grounds. |
| Impact on preservation of non-jurisdictional limitations defense | Rule 11(d)(1) error preserved non-jurisdictional issues for appeal. | Waiver would bar non-jurisdictional challenges after unconditional plea. | Because withdrawal was granted, it precluded reaching the limitations issue on appeal; remand for further proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Arami, 536 F.3d 479 (5th Cir.2008) (unaccepted pleas cannot be denied under Rule 11(d)(1))
- United States v. Jones, 472 F.3d 905 (D.C.Cir.2007) (no discretion to deny unaccepted plea withdrawal)
- United States v. Head, 340 F.3d 628 (8th Cir.2003) (Rule 11(d)(1) absolute right to withdraw unaccepted plea)
- United States v. Mader, 251 F.3d 1099 (6th Cir.2001) (pre-2002 rule required fair and just reason before acceptance)
- United States v. Shaker, 279 F.3d 494 (7th Cir.2002) (pre-2002 rule limitations on withdrawal before acceptance clarified)
- United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55 (2002) (plain-error review not applicable where Rule 11(d)(1) rights involved)
- United States v. Bell, 350 F.3d 534 (6th Cir.2003) (conditional guilty plea procedures for appealing pre-plea issues)
- United States v. Ormsby, 252 F.3d 844 (6th Cir.2001) (preservation duties to raise collateral issues in plea)
- United States v. Diaz, 52 Fed.Appx. 810 (6th Cir.2002) (non-official reporter; cited for context only)
- Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258 (1973) (unconditional guilty plea limits review to voluntariness and jurisdiction)