United States v. Pacheco
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 11960
| 8th Cir. | 2011Background
- Pacheco pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute at least 500 grams of methamphetamine under 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(b)(1)(A)(viii) in a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) agreement for a 240-month sentence.
- District court conducted an extensive plea colloquy, assessing her competence and understanding of the plea and its consequences.
- Shortly after the plea, Pacheco expressed desire to withdraw and later alleged mental illness and memory loss affecting competence and voluntariness.
- Psychiatric/psychological evaluations were conducted: Dr. Taylor found competence on 10/14/2008; Dr. Rypma diagnosed bipolar disorder and other issues suggesting possible withdrawal grounds.
- The district court held an evidentiary hearing, denied withdrawal motions, and sentenced Pacheco to 240 months; the court's findings on competence and voluntariness underpin this appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Pacheco was competent to plead | Pacheco contends mental illness affected competence | State court finding and experts show lack of competence | No; court properly found competence |
| Whether there was a fair and just reason to withdraw the plea | Mental state and coercive negotiations justify withdrawal | No fair and just reason given the record and evaluations | No; denial affirmed |
| Standard of review for competency and withdrawal decisions | Defer to trial court on demeanor and credibility | Purely objective expert opinions govern | Abuse of discretion standard applied; findings upheld |
| Effect of counsel performance on withdrawal claim | Counsel coercively pressured plea | Counsel acted appropriately and competently | No reversible deficiency; no fair and just withdrawal |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Bowie, 618 F.3d 802 (8th Cir. 2010) (plea withdrawal requires fair and just reason; standards)
- United States v. Murphy, 572 F.3d 563 (8th Cir. 2009) (competence defined; mixed question of law and fact)
- United States v. Martinez, 446 F.3d 878 (8th Cir. 2006) (reasoning on competence and understanding)
- United States v. Rollins, 552 F.3d 739 (8th Cir. 2009) (knowing and voluntary plea; factors for validity)
- United States v. Gray, 152 F.3d 816 (8th Cir. 1998) (standard for knowing and voluntary pleas)