Opinion ID: 4537793
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Disqualification of Montemayor’s Attorney

Text: We review de novo whether a defendant’s voluntary, unconditional guilty plea waives his ability to appeal adverse rulings of pretrial motions. United States v. Patti, 337 F.3d 1317, 1320 n.4 (11th Cir. 2003). Rule 32 requires that “[a]fter sentencing-- regardless of the defendant’s plea--the court must advise the defendant of any right to appeal the sentence.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(j)(1)(B). We have long held that, generally 1 The district court also entered an order requiring Montemayor’s co-defendant, Edgar ValdezVillareal, to pay $192,000,000 in forfeiture. 2 We previously granted the government’s motion to dismiss Montemayor’s appeal in part, dismissing Montemayor’s appeal of the denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea; however, we carried the forfeiture issue with the case. 4 Case: 19-12047 Date Filed: 05/29/2020 Page: 5 of 7 speaking, “[a] defendant’s plea of guilty, made knowingly, voluntarily, and with the benefit of competent counsel, waives all nonjurisdictional defects in that defendant’s court proceedings.” United States v. Yunis, 723 F.2d 795, 796 (11th Cir. 1984); accord United States v. Brown, 752 F.3d 1344, 1347 (11th Cir. 2014). A defendant who wishes to preserve appellate review of a nonjurisdictional defect while at the same time pleading guilty can do so only by entering a “conditional plea” in accordance with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(a)(2). The conditional plea must be in writing and must be consented to by the court and by the government. United States v. Pierre, 120 F.3d 1153, 1155 (11th Cir. 1997) (footnote omitted). The Rule 11 plea colloquy “constitutes the constitutional minimum requirements for a knowing and voluntary plea for federal courts.” Stano v. Dugger, 921 F.2d 1125, 1141 (11th Cir. 1991). The three core objectives of Rule 11 are: “(1) ensuring that the guilty plea is free from coercion; (2) ensuring that the defendant understands the nature of the charges against [him]; and (3) ensuring that the defendant is aware of the direct consequences of the guilty plea.” United States v. Camacho, 233 F.3d 1308, 1314 (11th Cir. 2000). There is a strong presumption that a plea created by proceedings that follow Rule 11 is knowing and voluntary, and that the statements made during that hearing are true. United States v. Gonzalez-Mercado, 808 F.2d 796, 800 & n.8 (11th Cir. 1987). Here, Montemayor waived his challenge to whether the district court properly disqualified his previous counsel because he entered an unconditional guilty plea. While the district court did advise Montemayor of his right to appeal, it did not make 5 Case: 19-12047 Date Filed: 05/29/2020 Page: 6 of 7 his appeal conditional because it was not in writing, was not consented to by the government, and the district court’s statement did not reference the disqualification of Montemayor’s counsel. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(j)(1)(B). Montemayor confirmed at his plea colloquy that he understood that he was under oath, he understood the charges he was pleading guilty to, he waived his constitutional rights by pleading guilty, he knew the consequences of pleading guilty, and he would be bound by his plea with no right to withdraw it. Montemayor failed to rebut the strong presumption that the statements he made during his Rule 11 hearing were true, which established that his plea was knowing and voluntary. See Gonzalez-Mercado, 808 F.2d at 800 & n.8. Thus, Montemayor waived his claim regarding his previous attorney’s disqualification when he entered an unconditional guilty plea. Yunis, 723 F.2d at 796; Brown, 752 F.3d at 1347. B. Montemayor’s Challenge to the Forfeiture Amount Generally, we have jurisdiction to review only “final decisions of the district courts.” 28 U.S.C. 1291. An appeal from a final judgment “draws in question all prior non-final orders and rulings” that produced it. Barfield v. Brierton, 883 F.2d 923, 930-31 (11th Cir. 1989). In criminal cases, a “notice of appeal filed after the court announces a decision, sentence, or order--but before the entry of the judgment or order--is treated as filed on the date of and after the entry.” Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(2). Rule 4(b)(2) applies where a notice of appeal is filed after a sentence is announced but before the judgment is entered on the docket, however, “[i]f the court has not yet 6 Case: 19-12047 Date Filed: 05/29/2020 Page: 7 of 7 decided the issue that the appellant seeks to appeal, then [Rule 4(b)(2)] does not come into play.” Manrique v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1266, 1273 (2017). Here, Montemayor’s notice of appeal was filed before the district court determined how much money he would be required to forfeit. Although his premature notice of appeal became effective to appeal the final judgment and conviction when those were later entered, it could not become effective to appeal the forfeiture order because the district court determined the forfeiture amount separately. Id. Accordingly, we affirm the convictions and grant the government’s partial motion to dismiss. AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART. 7