Court Opinion

ID: 2965170
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:36:45.372564+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:43:04.978529
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                         [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                         FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                         ____________________

No. 97-1447

                            UNITED STATES,

                               Appellee,

                                  v.

                          ANGELO TORRES-BAEZ,

                         Defendant, Appellant.

                         ____________________

             APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                    FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

            [Hon. Daniel R. Dominguez, U.S. District Judge]

                         ____________________

                                Before

                         Boudin, Circuit Judge,
                     Coffin, Senior Circuit Judge,
                       and Lynch, Circuit Judge.

                         ____________________

    Johnny Rivera-Gonzalez on brief for appellant.
    Guillermo Gil, United States Attorney, Camille Velez-Rive and Nelson
Perez-Sosa, Assistant United States Attorneys, and Jose A. Quiles-
Espinosa, Senior Litigation Counsel, on brief for appellee.

                         ____________________

                            March 26, 1998
                         ____________________
            Per Curiam.  Upon careful review of the briefs and record,
    we perceive no merit in appellant's contentions.
        While there may be some question about the standard of
    review applicable to appellant's first-time challenge to his
    guilty plea, see United States v. Martinez-Martinez, 69 F.3d
    1215, 1219-20 (1st Cir. 1995), we need not resolve that
    uncertainty here.  
        Rule 11 requires the district court to determine that the
    plea in voluntarily and intelligently entered, but there is no
    specific requirement that the district court ask about
    prescription drug use.  Carey v. United States, 50 F.3d 1097,
    1099 (1st Cir. 1995).  However, once informed that the
    defendant has ingested substances capable of impairing his
    ability to make a knowing and intelligent waiver of his
    constitutional rights, the district court must broaden its
    inquiry to determine the dosages consumed and the effects, if
    any, such medications might be likely to have on the
    defendant's clear-headedness.  United States v. Parra-Ibanez,
    936 F.2d 588, 596 (1st Cir. 1991).  
        Here, appellant complains that the district court should
    have broadened its inquiry in light of a psychiatric evaluation
    report (then 5 months old) indicating that appellant used
    insulin and Prozac.  However, the transcript of the plea
    hearing itself shows that defendant specifically denied recent
    use of any drug:  he was asked whether he was "presently on
    medication or have you used any narcotic drug within the last
    twenty-four hours?" and he answered, "No."  Based solely on
    that record before us, we decline to require any further
    inquiry.  The facts of this case are distinguishable from those
    in Parra-Ibanez, and so the result reached there does not
    obtain here.
        Rule 11 requirements do not apply to sentencing hearings,
    and so we reject appellant's claim that the district court was
    required to conduct a colloquy at sentencing.  And appellant's
    claim regarding the interpreters involved in his psychiatric
    evaluation is wholly without merit.
        Affirmed.  See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.