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, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. EDW IN VIDAL TOR

RES, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 16-10367

D.C . No. 2:15-c r-00382-DLR -1 M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na Dougla s L. R ay e s , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Se pte m

be r 13, 2017 * * San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : WALLAC E and WATFORD, C irc uit Judge s, a n d SANDS, *** Se nior Distric t Judge . 

# F IL ED SEP 15 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 ora l a

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

* * * The Honora

ble W . Louis Sa

nds, Se n ior Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the M iddle Distric t of Ge orgia , sitting by de signa tion.Pa ge 2 of 4

1. Edwin Torre s a

ppe a ls from

the judgm e nt e nte re d

by the distric t c ourt pursua nt to his guilty

ple a to one c ount of a ssa ult re sulting in se

rious bodily

injury in viola tion of 18 U.S.C . § 113(a )(6). Torre s a sse rts tha t his guilty

ple a wa s involunta ry . “ Although were vie w de nov o whe the r a de fe nda nt e nte re d a

ple a knowingly

and volunta

rily , we a pply only pla in e rror re vie w whe n a de fe nda nt a ppe a ls ba s e d on a

n unobje c te d-to R

ule 11 proc e dura l viola

tion.” Unite d State

s v . C arte r , 795 F.3d 947, 950 (9th C ir. 2015) (inte rna l c ita t ions omitte d). Torre s’ s guilty

ple a wa s c onstitutiona

lly va lid be c a

use it wa s knowing a

nd volunta ry . “ A ple a

is volunta

ry if it ‘ re pre se nts a

volunta ry and inte l lige nt c hoic e am ong the a lte rnative c ourse s of a c tion ope n to thede fe nda nt.’ ” Unite d State

s v . K ac zy nsk i , 239 F.3d 1108, 1114 (9th C ir. 2001) (quoting N orth C a rolina v . Alford

, 400 U.S. 25, 31 (1970)). Torre s’ s c la im tha t he suffe re d from

untre ate d de pre ssion whe n he ple a de d guilty

doe s not re nde r his ple a

involunta

ry . “ [D] e p re ssion a lone is ve ry unlike ly to re nde r a

ple a involunta

ry ,” pa rtic ula rly whe n the de fe nda

nt wa s

“ luc id[] ” and a

ppe are d to unde rsta

nd the ple a

proc e e dings. Tanne r

v . Mc Danie l , 493 F.3d 1135, 1146 (9th C ir. 2007). He re , Torre s wa s luc id a

nd a c tive ly

pa rtic ipate d in his ple a

he aring. In re sponse to que stions a

bout his m e nta l he a lth, Torre s sta te d tha t he fe lt “ solid” and

“ oka y .” Throughout the

ple a c olloquy , he wa s re s ponsive to the c o urt’ s que stions.Pa ge 3 of 4

He c onfirm e d tha

t he unde rstood the te rm s of the ple a offe r he re

je c te d, the e le m e nts of thec ha

rge d offe nse , a

nd the c onse que nc e s of ple a ding guilty . M ore o ve r, Torre s’ s own c ounse l inform e d the c ourt tha t he be l ie ve d

Torre s wa s c om pe te nt to ple a d guilty . B a se d on this re c ord, we c onc lude tha t Torre s ’ s ple a wa s volunta

ry . 2. To the e xte nt Torre s a

rgue s tha t the m a gistra

te judge fa ile d to inquire a bout his me nta l sta

te in viola tion of Fe de ra l R

ule of C rim ina l Proc e dure 11(b), his argum e nt fa ils. B e c a

use Torre s did not obje c t to a ny proc e dura l viola

t ion, this c ourt re vie ws for pla in e rror. Se e C arte r , 795 F.3d a

t 950. If a

de fe nda nt’ s sta te m e nts during a

ple a c olloquy

ra ise que stions a

bout his me nta l sta

te , the c ourt a c c e pting theple a ha s a

duty to inquire furthe r. S

e e id. at 955. He re , the c o urt’ s inquiry wa s suffic ie nt. Afte r Torre s a dvise d the c ourt of his de pre ssion, thec ourt a ske d Torre s a

bout his tre atm e n t history , whe the r he wa s c ontinuing to expe rie nc e m e nta l he a l th proble m s, a nd how he fe lt a

t the ple a he aring. Only

a fte r the c ourt re c e ive d a ssura

nc e s from Torre s a n d Torre s’ s c o unse l did it proc e e d with theple a c olloquy . Afte r obse rving Torre s for the re st of the ple a he aring, thec ourt c onc lude d tha

t Torre s se e m e d “ a

bsolute ly 100 pe rc e nt c le ar-he a de d,” and wa s c om pe te nt to ple a d guilty . The c ourt fully satisfie d the de m ands of R

ule 11(b). Torre s’ s m otion to strike

(Doc ke t Entry

27) is DE NIE D .Pa ge 4 of 4

AFFIRM E D .