United States v. Steven Yamashiro
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 9881
| 9th Cir. | 2015Background
- Steven Yamashiro, a registered investment advisor, pleaded guilty to two counts of wire fraud and one count of money laundering for a scheme that victimized >10 people and >$3.5M.
- At plea Yamashiro waived most appeal rights but not claims of involuntary plea; he also waived appeal of sentences ≤78 months.
- At the scheduled sentencing, Yamashiro sought substitution of counsel; the court granted the substitution and released original counsel before the new counsel arrived.
- The court permitted victim allocution while the new counsel was not yet present; one victim (Hale) spoke before the new counsel arrived and original counsel remained in the room during that allocution.
- Sentencing was continued; three months later the court denied Yamashiro’s motion to withdraw his plea and sentenced him to three consecutive 63‑month terms (189 months) plus restitution.
- On appeal the Ninth Circuit affirmed the convictions, held the temporary absence of counsel during victim allocution was structural error requiring vacatur of the sentence, and remanded for resentencing before a different judge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the absence of defense counsel during victim allocution at sentencing plain error violating the Sixth Amendment? | Yamashiro: proceeding with allocution without counsel present violated his right to counsel at a critical stage; structural error requiring vacatur of sentence. | Government: victim allocution is permitted by CVRA, not a triallike adversary stage; error (if any) was harmless because allocution was limited, recorded, and occurred again at continued sentencing. | Court: Affirmed that allocution is a critical, adversarial sentencing stage; denial of counsel (even during part of allocution) was structural error. Sentence vacated and remanded. |
| Was Yamashiro’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea improperly denied? | Yamashiro: plea was not voluntary; sought withdrawal before sentencing. | Government: plea colloquy statements rebut claim; delay in raising voluntariness; no "fair and just" reason shown. | Court: District court did deny the motion; denial was not an abuse of discretion—affirmed. |
| Should resentencing be assigned to a different judge? | Yamashiro: requested reassignment on remand. | Government: generally remand to same judge unless unusual circumstances. | Court: Unusual circumstances found (structural error and significant victim allocution the original judge heard without counsel); remand to a different judge ordered. |
| Is the error subject to harmless‑error analysis or treated as structural? | Yamashiro: error is structural; no prejudice showing required. | Government: any error was trivial/harmless. | Court: Denial of counsel at sentencing is structural error that defies harmless‑error analysis. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (plain‑error framework for forfeited claims)
- Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (plain‑error prongs and appellate discretion)
- United States v. Mageno, 762 F.3d 933 (summary of Olano test)
- United States v. Leonti, 326 F.3d 1111 (sentencing as a critical stage—right to counsel)
- Robinson v. Ignacio, 360 F.3d 1044 (denial of counsel at sentencing is structural error)
- Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279 (distinction between structural errors and harmless‑error review)
- United States v. Walters, 309 F.3d 589 (distinguishing denial of counsel of choice from denial of counsel altogether)
- United States v. Mikaelian, 168 F.3d 380 (reassignment on remand to preserve appearance of justice)
- Kenna v. United States District Court, 435 F.3d 1011 (purpose of CVRA and victims’ right to be heard)