United States v. Mendez-Santana
645 F.3d 822, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 10172, 2011 WL 1901545 (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(d)(1), a defendant possesses an absolute right to withdraw a guilty plea for any reason or no reason at any time before the court has formally accepted that plea.
Facts:
- Lorenzo Mendez-Santana, a Mexican citizen, was deported from the United States in 1987 and again in 1994 following a state prison sentence for a rape conviction.
- Mendez-Santana illegally reentered the country at an unknown date and used aliases and false birth dates to avoid detection.
- In February 2000, while using an alias, Mendez-Santana pleaded guilty to a felony in a Michigan state court.
- The state probation department referred him to federal immigration authorities.
- In April 2000, a federal immigration record check linked his alias to his true identity, criminal history, and prior removals.
- Despite this information, another immigration agent processed him as if he had no prior deportations, and in January 2001, an immigration judge granted him voluntary departure.
- Mendez-Santana failed to depart as ordered.
- In February 2008, federal immigration agents apprehended Mendez-Santana at his residence in Michigan.
Procedural Posture:
- A federal grand jury indicted Lorenzo Mendez-Santana for illegal reentry after deportation in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.
- Mendez-Santana entered an unconditional guilty plea.
- At the plea hearing, the district judge explicitly stated he was deferring acceptance of the plea pending a review of the presentence report.
- Before sentencing, Mendez-Santana filed a motion requesting to withdraw his guilty plea and to dismiss the indictment on statute of limitations grounds.
- The district court denied the motion in its entirety, without specifically addressing the plea withdrawal standard under Rule 11(d)(1).
- The district court sentenced Mendez-Santana to forty-six months of imprisonment.
- Mendez-Santana (appellant) appealed the judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth 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 a defendant have an absolute right under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(d)(1) to withdraw a guilty plea before the district court has formally accepted it?
Opinions:
Majority - Stranch
Yes. A defendant has an absolute right to withdraw an unaccepted guilty plea, and the district court lacks any discretion to deny such a motion. The plain text of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(d)(1), as amended in 2002, states that a defendant may withdraw a plea 'before the court accepts the plea, for any reason or no reason.' This language creates a clear distinction from post-acceptance withdrawals, which require a 'fair and just reason.' The court's prior precedent in United States v. Mader, which required a reason even for unaccepted pleas, was based on a pre-2002 version of the rule and has been effectively vitiated by the amendment. Because the district court explicitly stated it was not accepting Mendez-Santana's plea at the hearing, his subsequent motion to withdraw it should have been granted automatically.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies a bright-line rule within the Sixth Circuit regarding the withdrawal of guilty pleas, affirming the plain text of the 2002 amendment to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(d)(1). It removes all judicial discretion from the pre-acceptance stage of a plea, vesting the defendant with an absolute right to withdraw. The ruling emphasizes the critical importance of a district court's formal acceptance of a plea, making that moment the clear demarcation between a defendant's absolute right and the court's discretionary authority. This clarity will guide future defense strategies and requires district courts to be precise in their handling of plea colloquies.
