N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. JOR GE DOM INGUEZ, AKA B oxe r,

De fe nda nt-Appe l la

nt. No. 14-50454

D.C . No. 2:12-c r-00793-PA-1 M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Pe rc y Ande rson, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Ja

nua ry 13, 2017 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : TR OTT, M c KEOW N , a nd WATFORD , C irc uit Judge s. Pursua nt to a ne gotia te d ple a a gre e m e nt, Jorge Dom ingue z ple a de d guilty to one c ount of c o nspira c y

to distribute m e tha

m p he tam ine , a

c rim e c arry ing a
m andatory

m inim um se nte nc e of te n y e ars. Subse q ue ntly , he file d a

m otion to 

# FIL ED JAN 26 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).withdra

w his ple a

on the grounds tha

t (1) he be lie ve d a c c ording to his ple a a gre e m e nt tha

t the c ourt would ha

ve disc re tion to im

p ose a se nte nc e lowe r tha

n the sta tutory te n-y e ar m inim

um , (2) his ple a

wa s not knowing a

n d inte llige nt a

nd thus not volunta

ry , a nd (3) his c ounse l’ s pe rform a n c e wa s c onstitutiona

lly de fic ie nt. The distric t c ourt c o nduc te d a thorough he aring on Domingue z ’ s c l a im s a nd de nie d the m

a ll. The c o urt c onc lude d tha t Dom ingue z ha d fa ile d to e sta blish a fa ir and just ba sis to support his re q ue st. B a se d on (1) the la

ngua ge of his writte n ple a a gre e m e nt, (2) his a

nswe rs to the ora l c olloquy at the tim e of the ple a , and (3) his attorne y ’ s sworn a

nswe rs to inte rrogat orie s tha t he told his c lie nt be fore the ple a that “ the la w re quire d the c ourt to se nte nc e him to no le ss tha

n 10 y e ars,” the c ourt de te rm i ne d tha

t Dom ingue z unde rstood full we ll tha t he fa c e d a

m andatory m inim um se nte nc e of 10 y e ars. Dom ingue z a

ppe a ls the c ourt’ s rulings, a tta c ks the suffic ie nc y

of the c ourt’ s R ule 11 c olloquy , a

nd pre se nts us with a

sta nd-a lone c l a im

of ine ffe c tive a ssista

nc e of c ounse l. The re c ord am

ply supports the

c o urt’ s fa c tua l findings a nd de nia l of Dom ingue z ’ s m otion to withdra w his ple a . As the c ourt c onc lude d, “ He sim ply wante d a be tte r de a l a

nd, whe n c onfronte d

with witne ss ta

m pe ring, de c ide d to ta

ke the g ove rnm e nt’ s de a l.” Also, wepe rc e ive no e rror in the R u le 11 e xc ha

nge . 2Ordina rily we le a v e c la im s of ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e of c ounse l to c olla

te ra l re vie w. Howe ve r, whe n the re c ord on this issue ha s be e n suffic i e ntly de ve lope d by the d istric t c o urt, we have disc re tion to do so on dire c t a ppe a l . Unite d State s v. Davis, 36 F.3d 1424, 1433 (9th C ir. 1994). B e c a use Dom ingue z ’ s issueof re pre se ntation re sts on thesa m e fa c tua l founda

tion a s his a

tte m pt to withdra

w his ple a , a nd the re c ord on it is full a nd c om ple te , we e xe rc ise our disc re tion to de c ide it in this c onte xt. On the m e rits, we a gre e with the distric t c ourt’ s findings: “ The e vide nc e showe d tha

t prior c ounse l fully disc u sse d with the de fe nda nt his c a se , his c h anc e s of suc c e ss, inc l uding his we ak e ntra pm e nt de fe n s e , a

n d the e vide nc e of the inform an t’ s c onvic tion.” Whe n the de fe nda nt’ s atte m pt to ta m pe r with witne sse s c am e to light, c ounse l’ s options were se ve re ly de gra de d
. AFFIRM ED.

3