United States v. Vasquez-Garcia ( 2000 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-40149
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ARMANDO VASQUEZ-GARCIA,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. B-99-CR-320-2
--------------------
December 13, 2000
Before DAVIS, STEWART, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Armando Vasquez-Garcia appeals his guilty-plea conviction
for possession with intent to distribute approximately one
kilogram of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and
(b)(1)(B) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. He argues that his plea was
involuntary due to his counsel’s representation that the 60-month
minimum mandatory sentence was inapplicable to his case and that
he would receive a sentence less than the minimum mandatory
sentence.
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
No. 00-40149
-2-
When a defendant pleads guilty to a criminal offense, he
waives several constitutional rights. The record of the guilty-
plea hearing therefore must affirmatively reflect that the plea
is knowing and voluntary. Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 243
(1969). The voluntariness of a defendant’s guilty plea is
reviewed de novo. United States v. Amaya, 111 F.3d 386, 388 (5th
Cir. 1997).
Even if it is assumed that counsel erroneously advised
Vasquez-Garcia that the minimum mandatory sentence was
inapplicable to his case and that he would receive a sentence
less than the 60-month minimum mandatory sentence, such erroneous
information is insufficient to establish that Vasquez-Garcia’s
plea was involuntary. “[R]eliance on the erroneous advice of
counsel relative to the sentence likely to be imposed does not
render a guilty plea unknowing or involuntary.” United States v.
Santa Lucia, 991 F.2d 179, 180 (5th Cir. 1993). As long as the
defendant understood the length of time he might possibly
receive, he was aware of the plea’s consequences. Id.The district court’s admonishments with regard to the
correct statutory range of Vasquez-Garcia’s sentence at the plea
hearing and Vasquez-Garcia’s sworn acknowledgment that he
understood the possible range of punishment show that Vasquez-
Garcia’s plea was knowing and voluntary.
AFFIRMED.