United States v. Ramon Rios-Ortiz
Opinion
Opinion
Schroeder, J.
Appellant Ramon Rios-Ortiz pleaded guilty and was convicted of assaulting a border patrol officer. Following the plea, but before final sentencing, he moved to withdraw the plea pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(d), stating that he had changed his mind and wished to go to trial on a theory of self-defense. The district court denied the motion and Rios-Ortiz appeals.
Under Rule 32(d) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the court may permit the presentence withdrawal of a guilty plea upon a showing by the defendant of “any fair and just reason.” The issue presented on appeal is whether the district court abused its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea.
On May 19, 1986, Rios-Ortiz pleaded guilty to assault. The facts as presented by Rios-Ortiz at the time he pleaded guilty were not challenged by the government. Rios-Ortiz said that a female undercover officer approached him on a sidewalk and said “Immigration,” showed him the gun under her coat, and directed him to cross the street with her. The officer told Rios-Ortiz that they would wait for a senior officer, and he could then leave upon proving his citizenship.