Opinion ID: 799223
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Alcala's Waiver Was Valid

Text: Alcala argues that as a native Spanish-speaker with an eighth grade education, he could not understand the appellate waiver provision. He also faults his plea colloquy proceedings. He claims, first, that the district court failed to ask him about each trial right individually the right ... to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses, to be protected from compelled self-incrimination, to testify and present evidence, and to compel the attendance of witnesses. Second, he maintains that court prompted him for yes or no answers that, in absence of a narrative, rendered it unable to assess his understanding and competence. In turn, he argues, he could not have knowingly and voluntarily agreed to relinquish his right to appeal, and the waiver is invalid and unenforceable. Although he does not state so specifically, his claim of invalid waiver extends to his waiver's scope: if he could not understand the provision at all, he could not have understood that his appeal of a motion to withdraw a plea constituted an appeal of his conviction. In short, he did not knowingly, voluntarily give up his right to appeal the district court's judgment on that particular matter. We disagree. Waiver of the right to appeal is valid when a defendant knowingly and voluntarily relinquishes his right. See Shah, 665 F.3d at 837. In assessing the knowing and voluntary character of a defendant's waiver, the court should lend particular credence to the defendant's representations to the court during his plea colloquy, during which he is obligated to tell the truth. See Koons v. United States, 639 F.3d 348, 352 (7th Cir.2011); Hutchings v. United States, 618 F.3d 693, 699 (7th Cir. 2010). His waiver is knowing and voluntary if he understand[s] the choice confronting him and ... understand[s] that choice is his to make. United States ex rel. Williams v. DeRobertis, 715 F.2d 1174, 1182-83 (7th Cir.1983) (discussing waiver of the right to trial by jury); see also United States v. Johnson, 534 F.3d 690 (7th Cir.2008) ([W]aiver is likely knowing and voluntary if the defendant gave it for strategic reasons....). The court may also consider the fact that the defendant was represented by counsel, which, barring an ineffective assistance claim, supports a conclusion that the defendant's waiver was informed and strategic. See DeRobertis, 715 F.2d at 1182 (The purpose of the constitutional guaranty of a right to counsel is to protect an accused from conviction resulting from his own ignorance of his legal and constitutional rights. (quoting Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 465, 58 S.Ct. 1019, 82 L.Ed. 1461 (1938)) (internal omissions omitted)). Alcala's alleged language difficulties and level of education might be troubling if he represented himself pro se or if he alleged ineffective assistance of counsel. He did not do so, however, and he makes no such charge against his original trial counsel. These elements of his background, of which the district court was aware during his plea colloquy, do not defeat our presumption that his responses to the court's inquiries were truthful, see Koons, 639 F.3d at 352; Bridgeman v. United States, 229 F.3d 589, 592 (7th Cir.2000). Nor does the fact that Alcala's responses were largely yes or no, without more, defeat this presumption. See United States v. Messino, 55 F.3d 1241, 1253-54 (7th Cir.1995) (holding that the defendant was not deprived of meaningful plea colloquy because he was asked only questions requiring yes or no answers). While we stress that narrative responses in a plea colloquy are superior to inquiries from the court that elicit yes or no answers, see, e.g., United States v. Groll, 992 F.2d 755, 760 n. 7 (7th Cir.1993) ([S]imple affirmative or negative answers to the court's rote interrogatories give us pause in finding that [the defendant] entered her plea knowingly.); United States v. Fountain, 777 F.2d 351, 356 (7th Cir.1985) (Simple affirmative or negative answers or responses which merely mimic the indictment or the plea agreement cannot fully elucidate the defendant's state of mind as required by Rule 11.), our review of the plea colloquy, the fact that Alcala was represented by counsel, and the fact that Alcala was provided with a translator during the colloquy evince that he comprehended the district court's inquiries. We similarly find unpersuasive Alcala's contention that he could not waive his right to a trial and appeal until the district court and his attorney had appraised him of each and every element of a trial. During the colloquy, the district court informed him that, by pleading guilty, he would be giving up his right to a jury trial, including calling witnesses, further presenting his case, and submitting his case to the jury for a determination of his guilt or innocence. He understood that he could choose between being judged by a group of his peers or pleading to the crime and accepting the Government's support and sentencing recommendations. That understanding, coupled with his lawyer's advice and the fact that he decided to plead after listening to several Government witnesses testify against him, indicates that his plea and waiver were strategic choices and, thus, valid. See United States v. England, 507 F.3d 581, 586 (7th Cir.2007) (A court does not have to give the defendant a crash course in criminal law or trial procedure before a defendant's waiver of his right to counsel will be voluntary.); cf. DeRobertis, 715 F.2d at 1182-83 (noting, in evaluating the validity of a defendant's waiver of his right to a jury trial, that a defendant who is aware that the choice he faces is between being judged by a group of his fellow citizens or a judge may conclude intelligently that his lawyer's advice, based upon his experience and his knowledge of law and procedure, is entitled to controlling weight). Favorably construing his argument, Alcala's strongest claim is that he did not understand that, once accepted by the court, his plea constituted the basis for his conviction, and, as part of his conviction, an attempt to withdraw it would fall within the scope of his appellate waiver. Such specifics were not communicated by either the district court or counsel during the colloquy. Moreover, neither the court nor counsel explicitly stated that, once accepted by the court, he had no right to revoke his plea and that his ability to do so hinged on the court's discretion. See generally United States v. Redmond, 667 F.3d 863, 870-71 (7th Cir.2012) (There is no absolute right to withdraw a guilty plea.). Arguably, the terms of his plea did not expressly and unambiguously clarify that he could not change his mind, see United States v. Sakellarion, 649 F.3d 634, 638-39 (7th Cir.2011) (We enforce appellate waivers when their terms are express and unambiguous.... (internal quotation marks omitted)), and we construe ambiguities in his favor, see Shah, 665 F.3d at 837. Nevertheless, the terms of the plea agreement and the colloquy reveal that Alcala knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal and inherently accepted the risk that he might regret that decision. He could not have reasonably expected that the district court would find him not guilty after he had pled guilty. Once accepted by the court, his guilty plea was tantamount to his conviction, and the terms of his plea agreement clearly state that he agreed to waive his right to appeal his conviction, see supra Part I. He agreed to abide by all decisions of the court, reserving his right to appeal on three specific and exhaustive grounds: (1) any punishment in excess of the statutory maximum; (2) a sentence based on a constitutionally impermissible factor; and (3) ineffective assistance of counsel. See supra Part I. None of those exceptions underlie this appeal. At worst, he did not fully appreciate that he might wish to change his mind later, and that he could not become un-convicted except at the discretion of the court. Yet, such is the risk with plea-bargaining and waiver. See McGraw, 571 F.3d at 630-31 ([P]lea-bargain appeal waivers involve risk: `[b]y binding oneself one assumes the risk of future changes in circumstances in light of which one's bargain may prove to have been a bad one. That is the risk inherent in all contracts; they limit the parties' ability to take advantage of what may happen over the period in which the contract is in effect.' (quoting United States v. Bownes, 405 F.3d 634, 636 (7th Cir.2005))). That the risk materialized for Alcala does not trump the knowing and voluntary nature of his plea and waiver when he accepted the Government's deal. Our review is foreclosed.