Reynoso-Gonzalez

United States v. Reynoso-Gonzalez

Good Law
5 F. App'x 662
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitFebruary 28, 2001No. 00-55651; D.C. Nos. CV-98-00803N, CV-95-00973-NCalifornia729 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM ***

Jose Reynoso-Gonzalez (“Reynoso”) appeals the denial of his § 2255 motion which requested that he be able to withdraw his guilty plea or that his conviction and sentence be vacated. He contends that the government threatened to indict his children if he did not plead guilty and that his counsel was ineffective for allowing him to plead guilty in these circumstances. The Court reviews a denial of a § 2255 motion de novo and a district court’s findings of fact for clear error. United States v. Benboe, 157 F.3d 1181, 1183 (9th Cir.1998).

The government is able to offer a plea agreement to a defendant whereby a third-party receives a benefit from the defendant’s decision to plead guilty. United States v. Caro, 997 F.2d 657, 659-60 (9th Cir.1993). A plea is not invalid if entered under a plea agreement that includes leniency for a third party or in response to a prosecutor’s justifiable threat to prosecute a third party if the plea is not entered. Id.; United States v. Castello, 724 F.2d 813, 814-15 (9th Cir.1984). The guilty plea, however, must be voluntarily made.

Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(d); Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 242-43 , 89 S.Ct. 1709 , 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969).…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.