Court Opinion

ID: 3004112
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-24 22:35:43.453623+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:03:30.777578
License: Public Domain

NONPRECEDENTIALȱDISPOSITION
                          Toȱbeȱcitedȱonlyȱinȱaccordanceȱwith
                                  ȱFed.ȱR.ȱApp.ȱP.ȱ32.1

              United States Court of Appeals
                                  ForȱtheȱSeventhȱCircuit
                                  Chicago,ȱIllinoisȱ60604

                                SubmittedȱFebruaryȱ10,ȱ2010
                                 DecidedȱFebruaryȱ11,ȱ2010

                                           Before

                            RICHARDȱA.ȱPOSNER,ȱCircuitȱJudge

                            JOHNȱDANIELȱTINDER,ȱCircuitȱJudge

                            DAVIDȱF.ȱHAMILTON,ȱCircuitȱJudge

No.ȱ09Ȭ2301

UNITEDȱSTATESȱOFȱAMERICA,                           AppealȱfromȱtheȱUnitedȱStatesȱDistrict
     PlaintiffȬAppellee,                            CourtȱforȱtheȱSouthernȱDistrictȱofȱIllinois.

       v.                                           No.ȱ07Ȭ30182Ȭ01ȬWDS

MIGUELȱMARISCAL,ȱJR.,                               WilliamȱD.ȱStiehl,ȱ
     DefendantȬAppellant.                           Judge.

                                         OȱRȱDȱEȱR

        MiguelȱMariscalȱpleadedȱguiltyȱtoȱconspiracyȱtoȱdistributeȱcocaineȱandȱmarijuana,
conspiracyȱtoȱpossessȱcocaineȱandȱmarijuanaȱwithȱtheȱintentȱtoȱdistribute,ȱandȱpossessionȱof
cocaineȱwithȱtheȱintentȱtoȱdistribute.ȱȱSeeȱ21ȱU.S.C.ȱ§§ȱ846,ȱ841(a)(1).ȱȱHeȱwasȱsentencedȱto
240ȱmonths’ȱimprisonment.ȱȱMariscalȱappeals,ȱbutȱhisȱappointedȱcounselȱseeksȱtoȱwithdraw
pursuantȱtoȱAndersȱv.ȱCalifornia,ȱ386ȱU.S.ȱ738ȱ(1967),ȱbecauseȱsheȱcannotȱidentifyȱany
nonfrivolousȱissuesȱtoȱraiseȱonȱMariscal’sȱbehalf.ȱȱWeȱconfineȱourȱreviewȱtoȱtheȱpotential
issuesȱidentifiedȱinȱcounsel’sȱfaciallyȱadequateȱbriefȱandȱMariscal’sȱresponseȱunderȱCircuit
Ruleȱ51(b).ȱȱSeeȱUnitedȱStatesȱv.ȱSchuh,ȱ289ȱF.3dȱ968,ȱ973–74ȱ(7thȱCir.ȱ2002).ȱȱWeȱgrant
counsel’sȱmotionȱtoȱwithdrawȱandȱdismissȱMariscal’sȱappeal.

       Mariscal’sȱpleaȱagreementȱcontainedȱaȱwaiverȱprecludingȱhimȱfromȱappealingȱor
challengingȱhisȱconvictionȱorȱsentenceȱunderȱanyȱprovisionȱofȱfederalȱlawȱunlessȱheȱwas
No.ȱ09Ȭ2301                                                                                  Pageȱ2

sentencedȱtoȱaȱtermȱofȱimprisonmentȱaboveȱhisȱguidelinesȱrange.ȱȱItȱalsoȱcontainedȱan
estimateȱofȱMariscal’sȱoffenseȱlevelȱandȱcriminalȬhistoryȱcategoryȱunderȱtheȱsentencing
guidelines.ȱȱButȱbothȱMariscalȱandȱtheȱgovernmentȱwereȱsurprisedȱbyȱtheȱpresentence
investigationȱreport,ȱwhichȱcalculatedȱanȱoffenseȱlevelȱandȱcriminalȬhistoryȱcategoryȱgreater
thanȱeitherȱpartyȱhadȱanticipated.ȱȱMariscalȱthoughtȱhisȱlawyerȱhadȱmisledȱhimȱandȱmoved
toȱwithdrawȱtheȱplea.ȱȱTheȱdistrictȱcourtȱappointedȱaȱnewȱlawyer,ȱandȱafterȱconsultingȱwith
him,ȱMariscalȱchangedȱhisȱmindȱandȱwithdrewȱhisȱmotion.ȱȱTheȱdistrictȱcourtȱadoptedȱthe
presentenceȱinvestigationȱreport’sȱcalculations,ȱgrantedȱtheȱgovernment’sȱmotionȱforȱa
belowȬguidelinesȱsentenceȱinȱrecognitionȱofȱtheȱsubstantialȱassistanceȱMariscalȱhad
provided,ȱandȱsentencedȱMariscalȱtoȱ240ȱmonths’ȱimprisonment.

        Mariscalȱadvisedȱcounselȱthatȱheȱhasȱchangedȱhisȱmindȱagainȱandȱnowȱwishesȱto
withdrawȱhisȱplea,ȱsoȱcounselȱproperlyȱconsidersȱchallengingȱwhetherȱtheȱpleaȱwas
knowingȱandȱvoluntary.ȱȱWeȱagreeȱwithȱcounselȱthatȱtheȱonlyȱpossibleȱerrorȱtheȱdistrict
courtȱcommittedȱduringȱtheȱchangeȬofȬpleaȱcolloquyȱwasȱneglectingȱtoȱinformȱMariscalȱof
hisȱrightȱtoȱpersistȱinȱhisȱpleaȱofȱnotȱguilty.ȱȱSeeȱFED.ȱR.ȱCRIM.ȱP.ȱ11(b)(1)(B).ȱȱButȱtheȱerrorȱis
harmlessȱbecause,ȱhavingȱpreviouslyȱmovedȱtoȱwithdrawȱhisȱguiltyȱplea,ȱMariscalȱalready
knewȱtheȱinformationȱtheȱdistrictȱcourtȱomitted.ȱȱSeeȱUnitedȱStatesȱv.ȱDriver,ȱ242ȱF.3dȱ767,ȱ769
(7thȱCir.ȱ2001).ȱȱMariscal’sȱpleaȱagreementȱalsoȱadvisedȱhimȱofȱthisȱright.

         CounselȱnextȱconsidersȱchallengingȱMariscal’sȱsentence.ȱȱButȱasȱcounselȱproperly
observes,ȱMariscal’sȱappealȱwaiverȱforeclosesȱanyȱchallengeȱtoȱhisȱsentenceȱexceptȱaȱclaim
thatȱitȱexceededȱtheȱstatutoryȱmaximum,ȱthatȱtheȱdistrictȱcourtȱreliedȱonȱanȱunconstitutional
factor,ȱorȱthatȱtheȱappealȱwaiverȱitselfȱwasȱtheȱproductȱofȱineffectiveȱassistance.ȱȱSeeȱUnited
Statesȱv.ȱLockwood,ȱ416ȱF.3dȱ604,ȱ608ȱ(7thȱCir.ȱ2005);ȱUnitedȱStatesȱv.ȱBownes,ȱ405ȱF.3dȱ634,ȱ637
(7thȱCir.ȱ2005);ȱJonesȱv.ȱUnitedȱStates,ȱ167ȱF.3dȱ1142,ȱ1145ȱ(7thȱCir.ȱ1999).

       Mariscal’sȱresponseȱtoȱcounsel’sȱmotionȱdoesȱcontainȱallegationsȱthatȱtheȱlawyerȱwho
negotiatedȱtheȱappealȱwaiverȱprovidedȱineffectiveȱassistance.ȱȱAnȱineffectiveȬassistance
claim,ȱhowever,ȱisȱbestȱraisedȱonȱcollateralȱreview,ȱwhereȱaȱcompleteȱrecordȱcanȱbe
developed.ȱȱMassaroȱv.ȱUnitedȱStates,ȱ538ȱU.S.ȱ500,ȱ504ȱ(2003);ȱUnitedȱStatesȱv.ȱHarris,ȱ394ȱF.3d
543,ȱ557–58ȱ(7thȱCir.ȱ2005).

       WeȱGRANTȱcounsel’sȱmotionȱtoȱwithdrawȱandȱDISMISSȱMariscal’sȱappeal.