United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 20-1248

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Angel Morales

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the District of Minnesota

 ____________

 Submitted: December 18, 2020

Filed: January 29, 2021

[Unpublished]

____________

Before GRUENDER, ERICKSON, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.
After a five-day trial, the district court1

 declared a mistrial when the jury was

unable to reach a verdict as to whether or not Angel Morales was guilty of conspiracy

to distribute or possession with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of

methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A), and 846. A

few days before the rescheduled trial date, Morales sent three emails to the court

requesting leave to seek new counsel to replace retained counsel. With trial

scheduled to begin on Monday, September 23, 2019, the court held a pretrial

conference on Friday, September 20, 2019, as well as an ex parte hearing with

Morales regarding the basis for his dissatisfaction with retained counsel. 

After a lengthy discussion with Morales, the court informed Morales that it did

not find a basis warranting new counsel, but that Morales was free to retain new

counsel if that was his wish. The court set forth in detail the reasons it was not going

to continue the trial. United States v. Bradshaw, 955 F.3d 699, 703 (8th Cir. 2020)

(cleaned up) (noting the district court’s discretion is at its zenith when a request to

substitute counsel is made shortly before trial). Later that afternoon, Morales signed

a plea agreement pursuant to Rule 11(c)(1)(C), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure,

in which Morales agreed to “waive all rights to a trial or appeal on the question of his

guilt.” The agreement also contained a stipulation for a sentence of 180 months’

imprisonment. 

Assuming for the sake of analysis that Morales’s challenge to the voluntariness

of his plea falls outside the scope of his appeal waiver, the change of plea transcript

is replete with offers by the court to allow Morales more time to consider whether he

wanted to plead guilty. The court also explained to Morales several different times

during the plea colloquy that once the court accepted his plea, Morales could not later

change his mind and withdraw his guilty plea unless the court decided not to impose

1The Honorable Patrick J. Schiltz, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota.

-2-
a sentence of 180 months. Each time Morales indicated he understood the

consequences of his plea and never asked for more time to think about his decision

to plead guilty. At no point did Morales express any reservations about pleading

guilty. Morales’s representations during the plea colloquy “carry a strong

presumption of verity and pose a formidable barrier” in a subsequent attack. Adams

v. United States, 869 F.3d 633, 635 (8th Cir. 2017) (quoting Nguyen v. United States,

114 F.3d 699, 703 (8th Cir. 1997)). At sentencing, the court imposed the stipulatedto 180-month term of imprisonment.

After a thorough de novo review of the record, we find the record

unequivocally establishes that Morales’s plea was knowing and voluntary. See

United States v. Flynn, 969 F.3d 873, 878 (8th Cir. 2020) (citation omitted)

(“Whether a plea was knowing and voluntary presents a mixed question of law and

fact that we review de novo.”); United States v. Padilla, 889 F.3d 917, 919 (8th Cir.

2018) (independently reviewing the record and finding no basis to find defendant’s

guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary). Morales’s valid guilty plea waives the

right to appeal “all nonjurisdictional defects and defenses.” United States v. Smith,

422 F.3d 715, 724 (8th Cir. 2005). By entering a guilty plea, Morales waived his

right to appeal the denial of his motion to continue premised on his desire to retain

new counsel.

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 

______________________________

-3-