Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-02022/USCOURTS-ca10-92-02022-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Enzo Anthony Vincenzi
Appellant

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellee, ) 

~T 

tT:---~:,:-~.:: i;,!.~i•.:~ , ' ·., .. ; t ; ~ 

~"' . -

SEP 2 3 1992 

ROBERT L. h v~CKE.t. Clerk . 

) 

) 

No. 92-2022 

v. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

(Dist. Ct. No. CR-91-71-01-JC) 

(Dist. NM) 

ENZO ANTHONY VINCENZI, also 

known as Anthony Di Vincenzi, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before MOORE, TACHA and BRORBY, Circuit Judges 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal . See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered 

su~mitted without oral argument . 

*This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 92-2022 Document: 010110353514 Date Filed: 09/23/1992 Page: 1
Anthony Di Vincenzi contends the district court erred in refusing to permit him to withdraw his pleas of guilty to separate 

charges of possession of marijuana with intent to distribute and 

failure to appear. 1 In a prolix and repetitive brief of 28 pages 

in length citing no cases from this circuit on the issue and 

setting forth the incorrect standard of review, defendant manages 

to obfuscate the only issue before us. We affirm, nonetheless. 

Prior to consideration of that issue, we are constrained to 

comment on the material submitted to us by defense counsel. 

Although we are generally lenient in the demands we make on 

appointed counsel, we expect from them competent and professional 

service. Moreover, in this era of expanding criminal litigation 

when federal courts are burdened with the almost overwhelming task 

of bringing justice to the accused, lawyers fail their duty as 

officers of the court by foisting upon us meaningless and 

unhelpful rhetoric. 

In this case, the brief filed by counsel is virtually devoid 

of assistance to the court. For example, counsel takes ten pages 

to quote needlessly, apparently verbatim, from the transcript 

which is in the record. Next, instead of the statement of facts 

required by Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(3), counsel recounts the 

incidents leading to defendant's arrest which have nothing to do 

with the issue on appeal. Then, counsel fails to set forth the 

correct standard of review as required by 10th Cir. R. 28.2(c). 

The standard of review of a trial court's denial of a motion to 

1The appeal is submitted on the briefs by stipulation. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 92-2022 Document: 010110353514 Date Filed: 09/23/1992 Page: 2
withdraw a guilty plea is abuse of discretion. United States v. 

Burger, 964 F.2d 1065, 1070 (10th Cir. 1992). Finally, 

compounding the length and prolixity of the brief, counsel repeats 

numerous times statements and contentions previously set forth. 

To find the kernel in all this chaff, we have had to deal with an 

overabundance of irrelevant hyperbole. We document our frustration 

in the hope that counsel will learn from the experience and 

redirect his efforts in the future. 

The only issue before us is whether the district court abused 

its discretion in refusing to allow the defendant to withdraw his 

guilty pleas. At the outset, it should be understood that no one 

has the right to do so. United States v. Hickok, 907 F.2d 983, 

985 (10th Cir. 1990). Moreover, the defendant seeking leave to 

withdraw a plea of guilty has the burden of showing the fair and 

just reason required by Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(d); Burger, 964 F.2d 

at 1070-71. 

The reasons advanced by Mr. Di Vincenzi are that "he was 

misrepresented as to the severity he may have faced were he to 

proceed to trial," and "his plea arose out of proceedings where he 

believed that the government's agent, Kevin Small, misrepresented 

the role of a confidential informant in the investigation." The 

district court determined these were not fair and just reasons for 

allowing the withdrawal of the pleas. 

Unfortunately, defendant's counsel did not include in the 

record of this case the transcript of the arraignment at which the 

guilty pleas were entered. Nonetheless, such a transcript was 

available to the district court when it considered the motion to 

-3-

Appellate Case: 92-2022 Document: 010110353514 Date Filed: 09/23/1992 Page: 3
withdraw, and the court referred to that transcript in the record 

before us. 

On the issue of whether the defendant was properly advised of 

"the severity he may have faced were he to proceed to trial," the 

district court noted, "And I informed him that if he entered a 

plea of guilty and I accepted it, I informed him of the penalties 

that were involved." If we had the transcript of the arraignment, 

we would of course know precisely what the court advised; however, 

it is apparent the court was reading from that transcript when it 

paraphrased that advice, and defendant made no objection to the 

accuracy of the statement. We believe, therefore, there is no 

factual foundation for the defendant's contention that he was 

unaware of the penalty he faced when he entered his pleas. 2 

In an apparent aside to this issue, defendant claims the 

attorney he had retained at the time he entered his pleas made 

"errors in strategy" and had not "fully advised him as to his 

rights at trial and on appeal." 

merit. 

Those contentions have little 

First of all, the defendant's right to counsel does not 

include a guarantee that the lawyer will make perfect decisions in 

every matter. His Sixth Amendment right extends only to competent 

counsel, Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), and 

nothing presented in the record indicates a deprivation of that 

2For a plea of guilty to be set aside on the ground of 

misrepresentation, the defendant must show the plea was a product 

of material misrepresentations; Laycock v. New Mexico, 880 F.2d 

1184, 1186 (10th Cir. 1989) (emphasis added). The showing made 

here falls far short of this standard. 

-4-

Appellate Case: 92-2022 Document: 010110353514 Date Filed: 09/23/1992 Page: 4
right. Second, from the district court's other summations of the 

advisement given to the defendant at the time of the pleas, it is 

apparent the court "explained to him that he had no obligation to 

prove his innocence, that he was entitled to a jury trial on the 

charges, and that a jury of twelve people had to return a 

unanimous verdict of guilty before he stood convicted . " That is 

certainly an explanation of "his rights at trial." Furthermore, 

the district court stated, as part of its recapitulation of the 

arraignment, "He [defendant] responded to every instruction that 

the Court gave him. 113 We are satisfied that there is no substance 

to defendant's contentions. 

Finally, defendant does not favor us with an articulate 

explanation of why the "misrepresentation of the role of a 

confidential informant" should entitle him to withdraw his pleas. 

In his own words, Mr. Di Vincenzi told the court, "And the fact 

that Kevin Small was allowed to lie in court and get away with it 

is one of the reasons why I wound up entering the plea, for the 

fear of facing additional time in prison." There is no further 

elucidation presented in the brief. 

Assuming for the sake of analysis only that the fact of a lie 

by a witness can have a logical bearing on the pleas, the argument 

is substantially undercut by what occurred at arraignment. 

According to the trial court, 

31n this context, we cannot take seriously defendant's contention 

that the trial court failed to follow the procedures required of 

Fed. R. Crim. P. 11. Not only has defendant defaulted on his 

appellate burden of producing a record to substantiate his claims, 

but the district court's summation of the arraignment transcript 

belies the defendant's arguments. 

-5-

Appellate Case: 92-2022 Document: 010110353514 Date Filed: 09/23/1992 Page: 5
I asked him if anybody had made any other promises to 

him, he indicated no. I asked him if he had 

threatened or coerced to enter the plea and he said 

and I asked him specifically about the entry of his 

of guilty, do you do so voluntarily and willingly, 

he said, yes sir. 

been 

no, 

plea 

and 

Again, a transcript would make precise what was said, but the uncontroverted indication before us is that there were no compelling 

reasons for the pleas other than the fact of defendant's guilt. 

In sum, we hold defendant failed his burden of showing a fair 

and just reason for granting his motion to withdraw the pleas. 

Moreover, he has equally failed to demonstrate the district court 

abused its discretion by rejecting his effort. 4 

AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court 

John P. Moore 

Circuit Judge 

4

we note again that although there is an abundance 

this circuit on the issue of withdrawal of a guilty 

has not cited one. Instead, he relies upon off the 

from other circuits. 

-6-

of cases in 

plea, counsel 

point cases 

Appellate Case: 92-2022 Document: 010110353514 Date Filed: 09/23/1992 Page: 6