United States v. Jose Dominguez-Mejia

MEMORANDUM

Defendant Jose Dominguez-Mejia appeals his conviction and sentence following a guilty plea to attempted illegal reentry after deportation under 8 U.S.C. § 1326 . We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm.

We review de novo whether a defendant was denied the right to conflict-free representation. United States v. Baker, 256 F.3d 855, 859 (9th Cir.2001). We also review de novo whether a defendant’s guilty plea was voluntary. United States v. Navarro-Botello, 912 F.2d 318, 320 (9th Cir.1990). We review for plain error Dominguez’s claim that the district court’s plea colloquy violated Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11. United States v. Barragan-Espinoza, 350 F.3d 978, 982 (9th Cir.2003). Plain-error review in the Rule 11 context requires the defendant to “show a reasonable probability that, but for the error, he would not have entered the plea.” United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74, 76 , 124 S.Ct. 2333 , 159 L.Ed.2d 157 (2004).

First, Dominguez’s attorney at the plea hearing did not have a conflict of interest. A conflict of interest is “the existence of competing interests potentially affecting counsel’s capacity to give undivided loyalty…