Mendoza

United States v. Mendoza

Good Law
280 F. App'x 589
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMay 21, 2008No. 07-50104California622 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

We reverse the district court’s rejection of Noel Urrutia Mendoza’s plea of guilty to one count of violating 21 U.S.C. § 846 .

“[I]t is clear that a court must accept an unconditional guilty plea, so long as the *590 [Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure] 11(b) requirements are met.” In re Vasquez-Ramirez, 443 F.3d 692, 695-96 (9th Cir.2006). A district court does, however, have “discretion to reject a guilty plea ... [if it believes] the plea has failed to meet the Rule 11(b) requirements.” Id. at 700 n. 9.

There is no dispute that the change of plea colloquy, insofar as it was completed, met all the other requirements of Rule 11(b); the only question is whether there was a factual basis for the plea. Mendoza indicated that he was prepared to admit that he was “a voluntary participant in [the] crime,” and had stipulated to the factual circumstances of the crime. There was, therefore, a factual basis for the plea. See Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(b)(3).

The district court abused its discretion by nonetheless rejecting Mendoza’s plea on the ground that he could not admit he was predisposed to commit the crime. Predisposition is not an element of the crime to which Mendoza…

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.