United States v. Alfredo Ortega-Ascanio

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
376 F.3d 879 (2004)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

An intervening change in controlling law, such as a Supreme Court decision that provides a defendant with a plausible defense, constitutes a "fair and just reason" for a defendant to withdraw a guilty plea before sentencing.

Facts:

Alfredo Ortega-Ascanio, a lawful permanent resident since 1968, pled guilty to sexual battery in California in 1989.
At the time of his 1989 plea, Ortega-Ascanio was eligible for a discretionary waiver of deportation under § 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
In 1996, Congress passed the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), which made aliens convicted of certain crimes ineligible for § 212(c) relief.
In 1998, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) began deportation proceedings against Ortega-Ascanio based on his 1989 conviction.
During the deportation hearing, where he was not represented by counsel, the immigration judge did not advise Ortega-Ascanio of his potential eligibility for § 212(c) relief.
Ortega-Ascanio waived further proceedings and was subsequently deported to Mexico.
In November 1999, Ortega-Ascanio was found in the United States.

Procedural Posture:

The United States indicted Ortega-Ascanio in district court for one count of being an alien found illegally in the United States following deportation.
Ortega-Ascanio pled guilty without a plea agreement.
While awaiting sentencing, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in INS v. St. Cyr.
Ortega-Ascanio filed a motion in the district court to withdraw his guilty plea so he could move to dismiss the indictment.
The district court denied the motion to withdraw the guilty plea.
The district court sentenced Ortega-Ascanio to 77 months imprisonment.
Ortega-Ascanio (appellant) appealed the denial of his motion to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does an intervening Supreme Court decision that provides a defendant with a plausible defense to the charged offense constitute a 'fair and just reason' to permit the withdrawal of a guilty plea before sentencing?

Opinions:

Majority - Breyer, District Judge

Yes. An intervening Supreme Court decision that provides a defendant with a plausible defense constitutes a 'fair and just reason' to permit the withdrawal of a guilty plea before sentencing. The district court applied the wrong legal standard by focusing on whether the plea was invalid, which is the stricter standard for post-sentencing collateral attacks. The proper inquiry for a pre-sentencing motion is the more liberal 'fair and just reason' standard under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(d)(2)(B). Intervening circumstances, such as the Supreme Court's decision in INS v. St. Cyr, which effectively overruled circuit precedent and gave Ortega-Ascanio a plausible defense that his original deportation was invalid, satisfy this standard. A defendant need not prove his plea was involuntary or invalid to show a 'fair and just reason' for withdrawal.

Analysis:

This decision clarifies the critical distinction between the liberal 'fair and just reason' standard for pre-sentencing plea withdrawals and the much stricter standard for post-sentencing collateral attacks. It solidifies the principle that a significant, favorable change in controlling law is a quintessential 'intervening circumstance' justifying plea withdrawal. The ruling protects defendants who plead guilty under one legal framework from being irrevocably bound when that framework is fundamentally altered in their favor before their conviction becomes final. This precedent reinforces that the pre-sentencing withdrawal standard is to be generously applied to safeguard defendants' rights and allows them to pursue potentially valid defenses that were unavailable at the time of the plea.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: United States v. Alfredo Ortega-Ascanio (2004)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"