Court Opinion

ID: 9384164
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-01 00:00:34.201086+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:50.983408
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-40086        Document: 00516696903             Page: 1      Date Filed: 03/31/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit                                       United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                       Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________
                                                                                     FILED
                                      No. 22-40086                              March 31, 2023
                                    Summary Calendar                            Lyle W. Cayce
                                    ____________                                     Clerk

   United States of America,

                                                                     Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                            versus

   Jesus Martinez-Villela,

                                              Defendant—Appellant.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Southern District of Texas
                              USDC No. 5:21-CR-951-1
                     ______________________________

   Before King, Higginson, and Willett, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         A grand jury charged defendant-appellant Jesus Martinez-Villela with
   eighteen counts of various alien smuggling crimes. Martinez-Villela filed a
   motion to dismiss his indictment, arguing that the Government denied his
   right to due process under the Fifth Amendment and his right to compulsory
   process under the Sixth Amendment when it deported two witnesses who

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-40086       Document: 00516696903          Page: 2     Date Filed: 03/31/2023

                                     No. 22-40086

   could have provided material and favorable testimony to his case. The
   district court denied the motion without prejudice, and Martinez-Villela
   ultimately pleaded guilty to all eighteen counts, without a plea agreement.
   He was sentenced to 120 months of imprisonment and five years of
   supervised release.
            On appeal, Martinez-Villela argues that the district court erred in
   denying his motion to dismiss the indictment because the Government
   violated his constitutional rights when it deported witnesses who had
   material and favorable testimony. Generally, an unconditional guilty plea like
   Martinez-Villela’s waives all nonjurisdictional defects in the trial court
   proceedings that occurred before the entry of the plea and are unrelated to
   the voluntariness of the plea in the trial court proceedings. Tollett v.
   Henderson, 411 U.S. 258, 267 (1973); Smith v. Estelle, 711 F.2d 677, 682 (5th
   Cir. 1983).     Exceptions to the general rule include challenges to the
   constitutionality of the statute of conviction, see Class v. United States, 138 S.
   Ct. 798, 803, 805 (2018), claims of ineffective assistance of counsel that
   implicate the voluntariness of the plea, see Smith, 711 F.2d at 682, and
   instances where intervening decisions modify the substantive criminal law
   defining the offense, see United States v. Andrade, 83 F.3d 729, 731 (5th Cir.
   1996).
            Here, the record shows that Martinez-Villela made his unconditional
   guilty plea knowingly and voluntarily. Although he avers in his reply brief
   that the district court plainly erred in not expressly admonishing him that he
   was waiving his right to appeal nonjurisdictional pretrial issues, the court was
   not required to do so. See United States v. Lampazianie, 251 F.3d 519, 526
   (5th Cir. 2001); United States v. Coil, 442 F.3d 912, 914-15 (5th Cir. 2006)
   (“A district court need not inform defendant that his guilty plea operates as
   a waiver of the right to appeal non-jurisdictional pretrial rulings.” (citation
   omitted)). His challenge to the district court’s denial of his motion to dismiss

                                           2
Case: 22-40086     Document: 00516696903          Page: 3   Date Filed: 03/31/2023

                                   No. 22-40086

   the indictment is not jurisdictional and does not implicate any of the
   exceptions to the waiver carved out by the Supreme Court and this circuit.
   His claim was therefore waived by his unconditional guilty plea.
         AFFIRMED.

                                        3