United States v. Ruben Garza Coronado

Before GOLDBERG, SIMPSON and FAY, Circuit Judges.

GOLDBERG, Judge: Circuit Ruben appeals Garza Coronado from his upon guilty conviction plea of conspiracy cocaine with intent to distribute. 841(a)(1). U.S.C. §§ Coronado claims the proceed- ing at which the court accepted inadequate was because the court failed to impart to him an understanding of the charge and because he was placed oath. Coronado also levels several attacks the voluntariness of the We find the district court acted properly in accepting on the basis of the facts and contentions before it. We decline to claims, resolve Coronado’s other which he presented never to the district court and respect which our record is silent. We thus conclude that all claims are either bine, confederate, at presented conspire, agree improperly to- merit or other, and with each stage. gether We affirm. and with other unknown ... persons unlawfully distribute, with intent to possess, quantity I. . .” . . cocaine indictment as pleaded originally at the also set forth four overt read ap- The court indictment. three-count was a at meeting One which a code- acts. July represent him. On pointed counsel govern- introduced to a fendant date, before trial 3,1975, weeks two agent undercover ment as the who re- letter from Coronado received supply cocaine delivery for a July 7 Coronado new counsel. On questing had been discussed earlier. Another magis- appeared before his counsel meeting act was a later which overt request. hearing on for a trate and a different de- codefendant July the advised them magistrate ounces of cocaine govern- livered six to the and Corona- passed, not date would trial agent. ment the motion. withdrew do judge plea The told Coronado that bar- trial, July Coronado day of permissible On the the gains court a guilty. to He executed changed plea his participate not itself did the Upon them. plea was stating that the page oath request any bargains, to state three court’s the with an voluntarily and under- Attorney States the said The statement charges. agreed the to standing of had dismiss counts government only agreement Corona- three in return the to plea two and for recounted At- United States He stated with the one. further that if had reached count Coro- do testify to guilty plea for in the prosecution that in return a nado were of torney was defendant, government to with the would (conspiracy possess another count one to cooperation his known distribute), government proba- make to to intent for “whatever consideration that (sepa- two and three office counts tion prosecute not give distribution).1 want that information.” they would acts of rate attorney and Coronado himself Coronado’s executing the written In addition accuracy to the the govern- attested of both a statement, rule appeared Coronado bargain. Coronado ment’s statement place did him The court not proceeding.2 that he had no other bar- twice reiterated that Co- The court announced oath. gains. charged “knowingly with and was ronado The court had United States Attor- conspiring cocaine intentionally” some of the facts on which the government ney The state intent distribute. with indictment, The statement included charge which was based. read meetings of recounted description and two codefend- a charged that Coronado Coronado had intentionally did com- said he “knowingly and the indictment. ants accept plea rights being guilty a a of or if forth the refuses oath also set 1. The appear, corporation fails to apprised of the maxi- Coronado waived and plea guilty. of enter not punishment. court shall mum judgment upon plea shall not enter court time, provided: Fed.R.Crim.P. guilty At that it 2. unless is satisfied there plea. guilty, guilty may plead for the basis factual A defendant amended, court, or, De- con- Rule 11 has now been effective nolo the consent provide greater accept much detail refuse to cember The court tendere. procedure accept plea appropriate plea guilty, and shall pleas. proceeding guilty accepting Because the plea first nolo contendere or a place personally before the addressing case took and der in the instant the defendant effective, gov- voluntarily plea termining the old rule is made amendment became the nature of erns. See Goodwin 1977); consequences If Summers v. United 1210 n. if the court or a defendant refuses things described. He declared done II. pleading guilty because he was that he At the outset we must note our

guilty.3 capacity limited to review many of these juncture. this issues at Our record accepted court and at a contains only the formal filings case, this subsequent imposed the rule maxi- transcript, and sentencing transcript. years plus mum sentence fifteen a three did not move under Fed.R.Crim.P. special parole imprison- term. The year 32(d) to withdraw plea, his nor has he taken concurrently run ment was to with Corona- any steps other to raise his contentions be twenty-five year state sentence on an- do’s fore the district court. Under such circum conviction. other appellate practice stances reasonable calls did not move to withdraw determining only whether the district 32(d), plea under Fed.R.Crim.P. nor did he properly court acted in accepting steps apprise take other imposing sentence on the arguments advanced record and contentions then before it. See court. Without assistance from his court- Mims, States counsel, appointed per- himself 1971) (on direct appeal from appeal.4 fected this where there was no 32(d) motion court pro filings se with this court only would consider there was issues. raise numerous He claims that his 11); compliance with rule United States v. coerced, that plea was he received ineffec- Briscoe, 428 F.2d (8th Cir.), counsel, tive assistance of that the Govern- 966, 378, 400 U.S. 91 S.Ct. 27 L.Ed.2d 386 to fulfill its promise ment failed of a light (1970) (same); cf. United Cooper, States v. sentence, explained that no one to him the (5th 1128 1969) 410 F.2d Cir. denied, cert. meaning “conspiracy”, the indict- 868, 400 U.S. 91 S.Ct. 27 L.Ed.2d signed ment was by defective because not (1970) (on appeal from denial of 32(d) rule jury foreman, grand and that his con- motion court would not consider contentions spiracy conviction was improper because all presented court); not to district Wilkins v. co-conspirators alleged were acquitted. States, 351 (5th United F.2d 609 1965) Cir. (on appeal of denial of 28 U.S.C. 2255 § court-appointed Coronado’s attorney, guilty relief from plea court would not con charged responsibility of repre- sider presented contentions not to district senting Coronado on appeal, took the posi- court); States, Eller v. United 327 F.2d 639 appeal tion was and at- frivolous (court (9th Cir. on direct appeal of tempted to withdraw. After the Fifth Cir- plea guilty where there was no 32(d) rule cuit called a colorable claim to his atten- motion would not consider claim plea tion, Coronado’s filed a brief on by was induced unkept promise He argued the merits. failure leniency).5 Coronado place under oath the rule 11 proceeding plea vitiated the and that In accordance standard, with this we de- rule 11 failed disclose that cline resolve Coronado’s claims of coer- charges against understood cion and ineffective counsel. Nothing him. presented suggested court addition, explained 3. In the court the maximum transcript. rule That sentence and elicited Coronado’s statement provides all that is needed and all that is al- explained that he understood it. The court also lowed for the resolution such claims. We rights guilty plea. waived adjudicate challenges can therefore on appeal presentation direct without an initial 4. Coronado’s counsel did file with the district particular arguments to the district court. court motion to reduce sentence. record accepting guilty plea a district court al- disposition does not disclose the of that motion. ways faces the issue of whether the rule 11 proceedings adequate. later, develop noncompliance 5. As we claims solely rule 11 must be resolved on the so, however, We do put appropriate. merit or might have without claims not prejudice right present be that a the. notice on along to the inquiry further claims district court the first in- accepted stance, no conten- either 32(d) advances under Fed.R.Crim.P. or lines. these itself 2255. See United § rule 28 U.S.C. States v. tion Mims, supra (affirming guilty matters. The regard to these convic- deficient challenged not err in ac- prejudice did tion not below without court therefore district to claims of ineffectiveness of counsel and plea. cepting plea); involuntariness United States v. reiterate, however, our con Briscoe, supra (affirming guilty plea convic- significance in given not clusion challenged prejudice tion not below without procedural con the limited consistent involuntariness).6 to claim to these claims which do text. With pro adequacy of rule The issues remain are therefore affect not 11 transcript court was the rule which the district discloses ceeding and motion, charges its own understood the to notice on required place him stage decide the merits or whether failure under oath at this decline hearing plea.7 whether a invalidates determine even to hearings required held that were not a district court must 6. In some circumstances pleas Bryan guilty hearing attacks evidentiary to resolve a an conduct States, (5th Cir.) (en banc), 775 1079, challenge when the earlier even to a 95 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d proceedings flawless. In Fontaine rule (unfulfilled promise involving claim judge’s personal knowledge); within facts Supreme (1973) the Court held L.Ed.2d Barrett, United States alleged petitioner had who facts § 1975) (coercion ap no claim where reason making colorable was his coercion contention peared to doubt defendant’s 11 statements hearing. requires a Fontaine hear to a entitled contrary); Rosado v. allegations but ing others. for some 1975) (unfulfilled bargain conduct a de court must Whether appeared reason where no to doubt claim de upon the claimant pends level of bargain); rule 11 denial of such fendant’s challenge to the his or her adduces Frank v. United hearings required v. in Matthews United We Clayton Estelle, 1974) (same). v. Cf. 541 F.2d 1976) (coercion (5th Cir. 533 F.2d 1976) (5th (refusing require hearing to Cir. by person’s supported third affidavit that claim challenge guilty plea to state on habeas that defendant U.S. counsel told defendant’s attorney solely petitioner’s self-serving allega of judge threat from communicated had which were of coercion inconsistent tions impose if sentence defendant stood harsh to plea proceeding); at Thomas his statements v. trial); v. 523 F.2d Vandenades Estelle, (5th 1977) (similar). Cir. 1975) (claim prom (5th of unfulfilled Cir. further relief in If should seek a impose rather than consecu concurrent ise to court, task will be to measure district by inferentially supported sen sentences tive against allegations these decisions. ambiguously suggesting tencing judge’s letter claim with Coronado’s of an 7. We deal unful- impose concurrent intended he have part plea bargain as our of treatment filled of Dugan sentences); and issue. the oath 1975) promise (unfulfilled (5th Cir. F.2d proper need not consider'the forum by county depu supported sheriffs and claim claims, remaining nor two promises). ty’s were that there such affidavits guilty. they of Cf. survive — —, Allison, Blackiedge v. Cf. Tallant, F.2d States L.Ed.2d 136 Cr.L. [21 S.Ct. 75-4244; (discussing plea’s Mar. 1977] [No. unkept 3025; allegations (specific of bar 1977] foreclosing issues); various Trahan effect affidavit, by require unsupported gain, though Estelle, 1977); id. challenge plea accepted on habeas J., (same). (Goldberg, concurring) Coro- 11-type procedures). In Allison grand jury alleges foreman failed nado dismissing Supreme said that “before Court indictment, the facially adequate sign but our record shows allegations short of an eviden purports signature. to be his at least what judge ordinarily tiary hearing, authenticity a district to doubt the have no reason signature. to obtain affidavits from all as a minimum seek Coronado also claims that his knowledge likely co-conspira- persons firsthand to have invalid because all conviction was any arrangement.” acquitted, but the record discloses the existence tors co-conspirator pleaded guilty, n. 25. otherwise. One at 1633 III. of the mental element re- quired to sustain a conviction of second “understanding” issue arises degree murder.8 The concept of conspiring to make court’s failure from district simpler is no than the requirement intent the mean explain Coronado attempt to degree murder, second and explicitly assur- That term is not so “conspiracy”. ing of ing defendant’s understanding equal- expected can be laya simple Moreover, ly important. no matter how it. The word necessarily understand simple charges, a district court should certainty, a does have “conspiracy” make the minor investment of time the thousands of cases attested necessary to effort set meaning forth their mysteries. attempted to unravel its have and demonstrate on the impose elabo record that Although do not seek we courts, upon district we defendant understands. requirements rate Sierra we also go they further than reversed a conviction for possessing believe mari- conspiracy juana distribute, to ensure that a below with intent to saying that charge. To understands crime too warrants explanation fuller a prison, legal linguistics habitue pro se than district court afforded. foreign tongue. We do not are often a on the Developing record the defendant’s judges asking trial think burden our understanding of the charges places at most they guilty pleader some inform inconsequential an burden on the district argot legal and other con aspects legal court. There is no excuse for failing to esoteric to an cepts are accused. Dis procedures undertake utility in en- jury readily courts have instructions trict suring voluntary and intelligent pleas that certainly and can frame without available susceptible meaningful review. The difficulty appropriate an statement undue rule 11 proceedings become more effica- a defendant of the nature of the apprising meaningful cious and proportion direct pleading guilty. to which he or she is explanatory details that are developed jurisprudence We have banished from our a hearing. at such If guilty plea is taken days up when defendants were lined legal with little factual explanation, its guilty pleas were taken in whole- and the seriousness demeaned. sale lots without individualization. The ex- procedure principle is a new panded that is nature of the problem renders day very jurisprudence. sacred modern impossible exposition an of exactly what taking session should have Even the district court should tell the defendant dignity bargain than sale more basement involving cases various varying crimes. department store. should be at a It unhur- Gearin, Our statement in United States v. It should patient. ried and never so 1974), cert. de judge’s explication the frenetic that of the 1113, nied, 419 U.S. 42 L.Ed.2d (1975) charges is omitted. provides point a useful departure: of dis trict courts should requiring problem address expla- Our conclusion such an the prior assumption our the nation draws from rule 11 defendant is igno In Sierra v. of nature of charges.9 decisions. Government of Ca- rant the the Thus Zone, of types nal the statements included in jury charges the may provide reversed a conviction where a helpful reference. agree failed to disclose the defendant’s the Third Circuit that the count, govern- required albeit a substantive and the intent for conviction of conspiracy ment dismissed the count. Dis- degree plea involuntary second murder renders charge conspiracy of the of relief). missal under such requires and habeas does not invalidate circumstances Coronado’s conviction. in Gearin dealt with the de- 9. This statement understanding rights being of fendant’s the Morgan, 637, 8. See also Henderson v. 426 U.S. charges. equally of waived rather than It is (state 49 L.Ed.2d 108 applicable in both situations. pleading court’s failure to inform defendant meaning and unschooled could understand explain “must court proved charges. must be what basic acts and guilt.” Woodward establish We find no error reversible under the (3d 1970), States, F.2d here, however, because the circumstances Cantor, 469 States in United followed discloses, proceeding on its face de- 1972). The court must (3d Cir. F.2d sufficiently the trial court’s failure spite merely fully and the accused “advise required explication make the necessary acts are as to what perfunctorily them. that Coronado understood charges, Hulsey v. United guilt.” establish prosecution meetings described be- 1966). (5th Cir. Coronado, two tween codefendants and “an under- must And the defendant agent. At these government one of Coro- relation to the facts.” standing the law in delivery and one codefendant nado McCarthy v. United cocaine. told the court 1166, 1171, 22 L.Ed.2d 418 466, 89 S.Ct. allegations were true. The transcript these makes clear that as a whole Coronado un- government derstood intended to rely on a routine court must not facts, proof proof of these rely upon the defendant de boilerplate question to would have required facts these acknowledgement an elicit signed to proof conviction. understood the v. Government understanding. See Sierra necessary uphold would be Zone, supra; Monroe of Canal He makes no claim that the charges. facts and admitted at the discussed do state rely solely upon court Nor guilt.10 his not establish In to the defendant. it makes ments must be penurious dispens mandate that it ad the rule’s adhering to judge’s exposition ing with the court personally, dress charges personal interchange in a interchange extensive an engage forgiven It can be if only the defendant. itself and subse necessary to assure as demonstration record’s of under the de reader quent standing plenary parsimo and free from fully understand does indeed fendant But here this standard was met. ny. Un points to some charges. With upset these circumstances we do not der have the defendant choose to conviction.11 or her recount analysis in his or her This should not be tak narrative form and charges suggest beyond an ar invitation to look the four language. We do not en as an own of the rule 11 legal concepts, nor corners in deter definition cane whether the defendant exegesis, enough simple mining lan review understood law unlearned, charges. purpose untutored One of rule 11 is to that a guage McCarthy any require require 11. Rule 11 and the court does not claim that 10. Coronado personally. lacking. The Government address the defendant Here the mental element immediately Many upon be- so. of the statements read the indictment court did rely concluding his desire to which we announced fore Coronado alleged charges part guilty, indictment came of a direct and the understood carry incriminating judge. agreement out the acts between Coronado and the discussion intentionally.” responses “knowingly we also consider Coronado’s That was entered proceedings correctness of opening the court itself had . the court as to the statements the “knowingly by prosecutor charge and inten- the should not be taken as the as described unlawfully any conspiring tionally” co- that we relax to extent an indication the requirement the court to distribute. These state- address the defend- with intent caine ments, personally. coupled reversed a with the element of intention We conviction for ant provision meetings proof implicit abide that in United States the which Corona- failure to Crook, 1976), holding re- the would be do understood Government adduce, quired of whether Crook evince Coronado’s under- the determination proceedings. standing requisite further mental element. have to await of the one would upon the the spread (1974). record defendant’s L.Ed.2d 674 In describing pro- the and the other understanding information cedures to be followed in accepting a guilty comply in the rule. Failure to with detailed plea, we declared unequivocally, “The de- mandates reversal whether or not placed fendant shall be under oath.” government could show or has shown F.2d at 781. We described our prescriptions compliance would not have affected Id. More practice.” as the “minimum plea or that was voluntary. we recently have labeled the a oath “critical adequate no substitute for “There is demon- Vandenades v. United requisite.” at in the record the time the is strating 1220, 523 F.2d Here understanding the defendant’s entered the district court violated the Bryan man- charge against nature of the him.” failing place by date Coronado under McCarthy v. 394 U.S. at the rule 11 oath proceeding.13 1166, 1173, 22 L.Ed.2d 89 S.Ct. (emphasis original). We follow analyzed of such an effect McCarthy holding noncompliance in United States v. Maggio, error requires per- defendant be rule denied, cert. (5th Cir.), Here, however, anew. mitted 563, 46 L.Ed.2d S.Ct. While 11 record itself demonstrates that Co- rule reiterating that McCarthy required auto charges; rule ronado understood the 11 was violations, matic reversal of rule 11 we complied with.12 adopted a more lenient approach for viola Bryan tions of the requirement. oath The

IV. purpose placing the defendant under remaining The contention involves oath is to ensure that his or her statements place the failure to Coronado under oath. to the court are true. The helps oath requirement The oath stemmed not from possibility eliminate the that a defendant Bryan rule 11 but from our decision in part will believe that process of the (5th Cir.) implementing bargain is deny bargain exists.14 In Maggio we re- pass sap procedure’s 12. Whether this muster separate usefulness. A ques- rule under the new tion 11 less clear. That replace sworn statement cannot the oath’s effi supra. not before See note 2 us. The cacy regard. in this judge accept old rule forbade the inappropriateness relying on a written plea plea determining . “without . . by oath is demonstrated the facts here. The . . is made government attorney open revealed in charge.” the nature of The new rule re- that the written form’s statements were incom- quires that the court “inform [the defendant] plete. That form omitted reference to the that he and determine understands government’s promise to make Coronado’s co- charge.” Thus, the nature of the while in the operation probation known to the office. But case at the court’s failure to bar the inform Coro- government declared at the rule by nado of nature of is cured bargain proceeding, did include such understood, showing might that Coronado provision. required proceeding in court is Today true not be affirm a conviction new rule. likely fully much more than a written form application bargain’s reveal the antiquated terms. passing upon rule 11 but without unpresented require- issues. Whatever the might spring 14. Such a belief from the defend- rule, we ments under the new reiterate that misconceptions ant’s own or from the cloud go district courts should further than did the day that in an earlier cast its shadow over the court below. bargaining process. bargains subject Plea misunderstanding disputation. to much oath, 13. Coronado did execute a written major part One of their foibles abrogate is that placing that does defendant under oath Writings requirement the need for bargain may agreement be the defendant’s proceeding. the rule 11 say bargain. provide that there is a no substitute must there- for the rule’s personal interchange fore look at the rule 11 of a between circum- Bryan spection. Properly implemented, Bryan court and defendant. The oath rule en- rule 11 and proceed- hances the effectiveness of the minimize hazards. Rule 11 now ing by helping any possibility bargain to eliminate makes clear that “must come as an covenant, openly will open judicial fabricate answers and thus arrived at with where a subse- a conviction facts law justify judgment reverse them. to fused de- determined that hearing had of the district court is quent AFFIRMED. 11 proceed- at the rule statements fendant’s When a defendant true. in fact

ing were SIMPSON, Judge, Circuit specially con- proceeding, the rule truth at tells curring: in no results administer oath to failure agree I that of the we those circumstances Under prejudice. hearing compliance shows with rule F.R. the conviction. reverse need not Crim.P., Rule 11 read at the time the that does assert Here Coronado hearing held. Bryan bargains. He undisclosed there (5th banc), Cir. 1974 en filings in this court pro se contends an unfulfilled government made L.Ed.2d 674 sentence. This claim light aof promise agree as interpreted I further for review standard Maggio’s meshes Maggio, limited States v. Bryan require oath ing violations 1975), F.2d the direction of passing us from on preclude ment to II, F.2d, Bryan, page Part 781 of 492 As stage proceedings. issue at at the procedure to time of accept- indicated, appeal where on direct we have guilty or nolo ing pleas of contendere that motion to withdraw been no there has placed shall be under “[T]he to of the issue presentment or other not a for is reversal here. oath” court, only ade we review accept of the record quacy agree appointed I Finally, defense Maggio establishes ance of argument the Rule counsel’s tran- stand insufficient our rule script fails to show that Coronado “under- We there reversal. ing mandate alone conspiracy charge to which he stood” with We do so conviction. fore affirm guilty is without merit. That tran- right argue prejudice to Coronado’s out script refutes claim lack of under- in a proper the district court standing charge. him relief here entitle the facts Judge Goldberg’s opinion as I understand Maggio. We intimate no Bryan and deciding propositions three these and noth- respect to whether such a conten view additional, regardless of its discussion ing en require or would tion would understanding, So I con- other matters. Wilkins prevail. Cf. title Coronado cur. F.2d con appeal (refusing to consider § presented district court

tention by unfulfilled plea had been induced leniency).15

promise of appeal in this does

While sought, he lode of reversal that

find the if the veins him to mine future

do leave legal plea bargain impugn oversight. in the A made order to the statements he she or penal darken.” Unit- before the bars proceeding, they sunshine the rule 11 did Herman, ed States a lower threshold whether not consider Bryan requirement has not been exist when rationale a lesser standard observed. supra in note 15. The cases collected departures need to sanction from precisely applica- provide guidance but are not express Bryan. no view whether the oath violation the issue of whether ble to be the same as or lower than threshold hearing. none of entitles in note nor cases cited been a violation cases had there those appropri- to meet the would be able attempted Bryan cases oath mandate. Those ate standard. a defendant must cross the threshold locate

Case Details

Case Name: United States v. Ruben Garza Coronado

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Date Published: Jul 20, 1977

Citation: 554 F.2d 166

Docket Number: 75-3609

Court Abbreviation: 5th Cir.