United States v. Sevilla-Oyola
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 19831
1st Cir.2014Background
- Carlos Sevilla-Oyola pleaded guilty (Aug 9, 2011) to a drug conspiracy (Count One) and a §924(c) firearms offense (Count Two); plea agreement stipulated drug quantity and several Guidelines adjustments and included an appeal waiver.
- At the change-of-plea the district judge failed to expressly state Count Two’s possible maximum (life) and did not mention parole ineligibility; the plea agreement itself listed life as Count Two’s maximum and Sevilla said he understood the agreement.
- The PSR increased the leadership enhancement and labeled Sevilla a career offender; a PSR addendum also alleged Sevilla committed an uncharged murder (the “Pitufo” killing) based on a cooperating witness’s statements.
- At first sentencing (Jan 25–26, 2012) the judge considered Burgos’s testimony about the uncharged murder, departed upward, and imposed life imprisonment; the written judgment apportioned terms between counts.
- The judge later (Feb 8) attempted to correct the written sentence under Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(a), altering the allocations (the government conceded Rule 35(a) did not authorize that action); the judge then sua sponte issued further orders, vacated and conducted a supplemental colloquy (Mar 8) and resentenced (Mar 12) to a lower aggregate term (405 months).
- On appeal Sevilla challenged (inter alia) the judge’s authority to act post-judgment, the adequacy of the plea colloquy(s), reasonableness of the final sentence, and denial of recusal/Santobello relief; the First Circuit found Rule 35(a) did not authorize the Feb 8 changes and ultimately vacated all judgments and remanded for resentencing to the same judge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Sevilla) | Defendant's Argument (Gov't) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 35(a) authorized the Feb 8 amended judgment | Rule 35(a) could be used to correct judge’s alleged clerical/colloquy errors and thus validate the Feb 8 order | Gov’t ultimately conceded Rule 35(a) did not authorize Feb 8 action | Court: Rule 35(a) is limited to correcting sentencing errors (arithmetical/clear errors); it did not authorize the Feb 8 amendments (vacated) |
| Whether the district judge could be treated as acting under §2255 because of Sevilla’s Feb 22 omnibus motion | Sevilla did not invoke §2255 and the motion should not be recast; recharacterization would unfairly preclude future collateral review | Gov’t asked court to treat Feb 22 motion as a §2255 collateral attack to justify post-Feb 8 actions | Court: Declined to recharacterize the motion under §2255; Feb 22 motion did not confer §2255 authority; post-Feb 8 actions lacked that basis |
| Whether Rule 11 defects in the initial plea (failure to state Count Two’s life maximum; parole advice) invalidate the January 26 judgment | Sevilla argued missing life-penalty warning rendered plea/first judgment vulnerable and merited vacatur/remand | Gov’t argued waiver and that plea agreement and colloquy otherwise put Sevilla on notice (the agreement listed life maximum) | Court: Sevilla’s Rule 11 claims were not adequately developed on appeal and thus waived; even if reviewed for plain error, the life-max omission was not prejudicial because plea agreement disclosed it; parole omission not required by Rule 11 |
| Whether resentencing should occur and to which judge | Sevilla sought vacatur and resentencing before a different judge (recusal argued) | Gov’t initially argued different positions; court concerned about waiver/risks of reinstating life term | Court: Given procedural irregularities and developments after oral argument, the panel vacated all judgments and remanded for resentencing to the same district judge (declining to reassign) |
Key Cases Cited
- Hill v. United States, 368 U.S. 424 (1962) (Rule 35(a) limited to correcting sentences that resulted from arithmetical, technical, or other clear error)
- United States v. Ortiz-Garcia, 665 F.3d 279 (1st Cir. 2011) (discussing Rule 11 duty to inform defendant of maximum possible penalty and plain-error review)
- United States v. Vinyard, 539 F.3d 589 (7th Cir. 2008) (Rule 35(a) inappropriate to cure Rule 11 colloquy defects)
- Dominguez Benitez v. United States, 542 U.S. 74 (2004) (plain-error standard for Rule 11 errors requires reasonable probability the defendant would not have pleaded guilty but for the error)
- Castro v. United States, 540 U.S. 375 (2003) (limits and warnings required before recharacterizing motions as §2255 filings)
- Greenlaw v. United States, 554 U.S. 237 (2008) (appellate courts may not increase a sentence in favor of the government absent a cross-appeal)
- Benz v. United States, 282 U.S. 304 (1931) (common-law authority addressed for sentence reconsideration; cited but not decided here)
- United States v. Leja, 448 F.3d 86 (1st Cir. 2006) (standard of review for interpretation of Criminal Rules)