Opinion ID: 169970
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Garduño's Motion to Withdraw her Plea of Guilty

Text: Under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, a defendant may withdraw a plea of guilty after the court accepts the plea, but before it imposes sentence if . . . the defendant can show a fair and just reason for requesting the withdrawal. Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(d)(2)(B). In addition, the Rule states that [a]fter the court imposes sentence, the defendant may not withdraw a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, and the plea may be set aside only on direct appeal or collateral attack. Fed. R.Crim.P. 11(e). Interpretations of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure are legal conclusions which this court reviews de novo. United States v. Roman-Zarate, 115 F.3d 778, 781 (10th Cir.1997). Although Garduño's motion was filed after sentencing, she contends that her motion is not barred by Rule 11 because the sentence has not yet been imposed. She argues that the sentence is imposed when the defendant begins serving her sentence, not when not when the defendant is sentenced. Therefore, Garduño argues, because she has not actually surrendered to the Bureau of Prisons her sentence has not been imposed. The plain language of Rule 11 precludes Garduño's arguments. The word impose in the context of a penalty means to make, frame, or apply . . . as compulsory, obligatory or enforcible. Webster's Third New International Dictionary 1136 (1993). It does not have the same meaning as commence, a proposition urged by Garduño. Id. at 456 (to enter upon). This is consistent with the application of Rule 11 in the federal courts where, after sentencing, a defendant's options for challenging a plea of guilty are limited to direct appeal or a collateral attack pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See, e.g., Lucero v. United States, 425 F.2d 172, 173 (10th Cir.1970) (per curiam) (challenging a guilty plea on collateral attack); United States v. Ortega-Ascanio, 376 F.3d 879, 885 (9th Cir. 2004) (If the defendant waits until his conviction is final, the district court cannot permit withdrawal and the plea can be set aside only on direct appeal or in collateral proceedings, that is, if the plea is somehow invalid.). Garduño's sentence was imposed within the meaning of Rule 11 when the district court announced her sentence on August 3, 2006. Her September 6, 2006 motion to withdraw her plea was therefore untimely.