2004 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

11-22-2004 

# U SA v . Rotge r P e r e z P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 04-1888

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2004 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du
. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" U SA v . Rot g e r P e r ez " (2004). 2004 D e cisio n s . P ape r 128. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004/128NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT

No

. 

### 04-1888

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. JOSE ANT ONIO ROT GER PEREZ,

Appellant

On A ppeal from the Un ited States District Co urt for the Easte rn D istrict of P enns ylvania (D istrict Co urt N o. 03-cr- 00552 ) Distri ct Judge: Honorable Frankli n S. Van Antwerpen 

### Submitted Un der Third C ircuit LAR 3 4.1(a): November 19, 2004 Before: SCIRICA , Chief Judge , and MCKEE and CHERTOFF, Circuit Judges (Fil ed November 22, 2004 )

OPI NION

CH ER TO FF , Circuit

Judge. After a j urywas empaneled and sworn, opening argument s were complet ed, and two victims test ifie d and ident ifie d Appellant Jose Antonio Rot ger Perez a s the man who2

robb ed the m at g unp oint w hile the y work ed at a mini-m arket, P erez c onsu lted w ith counsel, signed a wri tten pl ea agreement , and pl ed guilt y t o the fi ve armed robber ies for wh ich he wa s cha rged . On e w eek la ter, he se nt a letter to the D istrict Co urt, seek ing to withdraw his guilty plea. The D istrict Court denied h is request after an e videntiary heari ng, andPer ez a

ppe al ed. We wil l a ffirm. Once the District Court has accept ed a guil ty

plea, it “may

not automatical ly

be withdrawn at t

he defendant' s whim.” Uni te d St at es v. Bro wn , 250 F.3d 811, 815 (3d Cir. 2001) (ci ting United States v. Martinez , 785 F.2d 111 (3d Cir. 1986)). The Court must inst ead deter

mine whether t

he defendant has “a fair and just reason for

withdrawing a plea o f gu ilty,” Fed. R . Crim . P. 32(e ), cons idering the fo llow ing thre e fac tors: (1) wh ether th e defenda nt asse rts his inn ocen ce; (2) whether the government would be pr ejudic ed by t he withdrawal ; and (3) the s tren gth of th e de fen dan t's rea son to w ithd raw the p lea. Id. (citing United States v. Huff , 873 F.2d 709, 711 (3d Cir. 1989)). The burden is on t he defendant t o assert

his i nnocence and reas on to withdr aw the plea. If he fai ls t o do so, t he gov ern me nt n eed not esta blish prejud ice. Un ited Sta tes v. H arris , 44 F.3d 1206, 1210 (3d Cir. 1995 ). “A shift in defense tactics, a chan ge of m ind, or the fear o f punishm ent are not adequat e reasons to impose on t he government t

he expense, diffi culty , and ri sk of trying a defendant

who has already

acknowledged his guilt by pl eading gui lty .” Bro wn , 250 F.3d at 815 ( quoting United States v. J ones , 979 F.2d 317, 318 (3d Cir. 1992) (supers eded by s tatute on other grounds)). The Distri ct Court’ s “decis ion not t o grant3

such a motion wil l only be dist urbed if t he court ha s abused i ts di scret ion.” United States v. Is aac , 141 F.3d 477, 485 (3d Cir. 199 8). The Distri ct Court di d not abuse i ts di scret ion when it de termine d that t he De fen dan t did not pro vid e an y “fair and just r eas ons ” fo r w ithd raw ing his g uilty ple a. First , the Defendant never mai ntaine d his i nnocence, eve n at the evident iary hearing regard ing h is plea w ithdraw al requ est. Th ere, w hen a sked wh ether h e “in fact, commit[ted] each and every one of the r obberies that [ he] pled gui lty to,” he answered, “Y es, I adm itted to the ones that you h ad w itnesse s for, th e peo ple tha t testified h ere in the trial.” (A pp. 16 9; see also Appellant Br. at 13.) Second, the Defendant di d not provide a “ fair and just ” reason for his withdrawal reque st. Inste ad, hi s asser tion t hat he did not under stand hi s plea bec ause it was in Englis h is bel ied by his compete nt repres entat ion by

a bilingual attorney

and the pre sence of a Spani sh int erpret er thr oughout the ple a coll oquy. Perez’s clai m that he was “pr essured” to plea d guilt y because he was told t hat he would otherwise face life impris onment is negated by clear case law that “fear of s ubs tanti al se nten ce” doe s no t pro vid e gr oun ds to wit hdr aw a ple a, see Jones , 979 F.2d at 318 . Finally, the G over nm ent w ould suffer preju dice if the D efen dant w ere allo we d to with draw the ple a he m ade m id-trial, as it w ould requ ire the G over nm ent to d uplica te its pr ev io us effo rts if r eq ui re d t o b rin g t he ca se to tria l b ef or e a ne w ju ry. The D istri ct Court was within its discretion when it denied the Defendan t’s request to wit hdr aw hi s pl ea o f gu il ty , and t hi s Court wil l a ffirm.