United States v. Torres-Baez ( 1998 )

USCA1 Opinion

                         [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]



                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                         FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                         ____________________





No. 97-1447





                            UNITED STATES,



                               Appellee,



                                  v.



                          ANGELO TORRES-BAEZ,



                         Defendant, Appellant.



                         ____________________





             APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                    FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO



            [Hon. Daniel R. Dominguez, U.S. District Judge]



                         ____________________



                                Before



                         Boudin, Circuit Judge,

                     Coffin, Senior Circuit Judge,

                       and Lynch, Circuit Judge.



                         ____________________



    Johnny Rivera-Gonzalez on brief for appellant.

    Guillermo Gil, United States Attorney, Camille Velez-Rive and Nelson

Perez-Sosa, Assistant United States Attorneys, and Jose A. Quiles-

Espinosa, Senior Litigation Counsel, on brief for appellee.





                         ____________________



                            March 26, 1998

                         ____________________

            Per Curiam.  Upon careful review of the briefs and record,

    we perceive no merit in appellant's contentions.

        While there may be some question about the standard of

    review applicable to appellant's first-time challenge to his

    guilty plea, see United States v. Martinez-Martinez, 69 F.3d

    1215, 1219-20 (1st Cir. 1995), we need not resolve that

    uncertainty here.

        Rule 11 requires the district court to determine that the

    plea in voluntarily and intelligently entered, but there is no

    specific requirement that the district court ask about

    prescription drug use.  Carey v. United States, 50 F.3d 1097,

    1099 (1st Cir. 1995).  However, once informed that the

    defendant has ingested substances capable of impairing his

    ability to make a knowing and intelligent waiver of his

    constitutional rights, the district court must broaden its

    inquiry to determine the dosages consumed and the effects, if

    any, such medications might be likely to have on the

    defendant's clear-headedness.  United States v. Parra-Ibanez,

    936 F.2d 588, 596 (1st Cir. 1991).

        Here, appellant complains that the district court should

    have broadened its inquiry in light of a psychiatric evaluation

    report (then 5 months old) indicating that appellant used

    insulin and Prozac.  However, the transcript of the plea

    hearing itself shows that defendant specifically denied recent

    use of any drug:  he was asked whether he was "presently on

    medication or have you used any narcotic drug within the last

    twenty-four hours?" and he answered, "No."  Based solely on

    that record before us, we decline to require any further

    inquiry.  The facts of this case are distinguishable from those

    in Parra-Ibanez, and so the result reached there does not

    obtain here.

        Rule 11 requirements do not apply to sentencing hearings,

    and so we reject appellant's claim that the district court was

    required to conduct a colloquy at sentencing.  And appellant's

    claim regarding the interpreters involved in his psychiatric

    evaluation is wholly without merit.

        Affirmed.  See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.