United States v. Mario Muniz-Martinez

MEMORANDUM

Defendant-Appellant Muniz-Martinez was charged with attempted illegal reentry after deportation. Against the advice of counsel, he rejected a plea agreement and instead pled guilty to the indictment. He now appeals, arguing that the magistrate judge who presided over his plea hearing made numerous errors in violation of Rule 11 and due process. We affirm.

Defendant did not object at any time during the plea colloquy, nor did he object to the magistrate judge’s report to the district judge. Review is therefore for plain error. See United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74, 76 , 124 S.Ct. 2333 , 159 L.Ed.2d 157 (2004). To obtain reversal of a conviction based on Rule 11 error, the defendant “must show a reasonable probability that, but for the error, he would not have entered the plea.” Id. at 83 , 124 S.Ct. 2333 .

The district court did not plainly err in not holding a competency hearing sua sponte. Defendant has not presented any medical evidence of incompetence, see United States v. Garza, 751 F.3d 1130, 1135 (9th Cir. 2014), nor has he pointed to any evidence showing that mental incompetence is what led him to “irrationally” reject the plea agreement and…