United States v. Padilla ( 2021 )

Case: 20-10436 Document: 00515721174 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/26/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
January 26, 2021
No. 20-10436
Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Abel Fernando Padilla,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:19-CR-375-1
Before Jones, Barksdale, and Stewart, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Abel Fernando Padilla pleaded guilty, pursuant to a written plea
agreement, to possession of a firearm by a felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). At arraignment, the district court deferred
deciding whether to accept the plea agreement, stating: “If later on I get
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 20-10436 Document: 00515721174 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/26/2021
No. 20-10436
some information that causes me to think that the Plea Agreement should be
rejected, and if I, in fact, do reject it, I’ll make that known to you and the
attorneys in the case and give you an opportunity to withdraw a plea of
guilty”.
At sentencing, however, the court did not explicitly reject or accept
the agreement. Moreover, Padilla did not attempt to withdraw his guilty plea.
He was sentenced to, inter alia, an above-Sentencing Guidelines term of 120
months’ imprisonment.
Padilla contends the court erred by implicitly rejecting the plea
agreement without giving Padilla a chance to withdraw it. Because Padilla
did not raise this issue in district court, review is only for plain error. E.g.,
United States v. Broussard, 669 F.3d 537, 546 (5th Cir. 2012).
Under that well-known standard, Padilla must show a forfeited plain
error (clear or obvious error, rather than one subject to reasonable dispute)
that affected his substantial rights. Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135
(2009). If he makes that showing, we have the discretion to correct the
reversible plain error, but generally should do so only if it “seriously affect[s]
the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings”. Id.
(alteration in original).
Regarding whether there was the requisite clear or obvious error,
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 states: “If the court accepts the plea
agreement, it must inform the defendant that . . . the agreed disposition will
be included in the judgment”. Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(4). Likewise, if the
court rejects a plea agreement, it must “advise the defendant personally that
the court is not required to follow the plea agreement and give the defendant
an opportunity to withdraw the plea”. Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(5)(B). As
noted, the district court did neither when, by the plain language of Rule 11, it
2
Case: 20-10436 Document: 00515721174 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/26/2021
No. 20-10436
was clear and obvious that it was required to do one of the two. See, e.g.,
United States v. Morales-Sosa, 191 F.3d 586, 587 (5th Cir. 1999).
To determine whether a Rule 11 error affects defendant’s substantial
rights, “we focus on whether the defendant's knowledge and comprehension
of the full and correct information would have been likely to affect his
willingness to plead guilty”. United States v. Johnson, 1 F.3d 296, 302 (5th
Cir. 1993) (en banc). Had the court rejected the plea agreement, it may have
been likely to affect Padilla’s willingness to plead guilty, because he might
have withdrawn his guilty plea. If, however, the court had accepted the
agreement, the Rule 11 error would not affect Padilla’s substantial rights,
because there is no indication Padilla would have withdrawn his guilty plea if
he knew the plea agreement would be accepted.
Next addressed is whether the court accepted the plea agreement.
Our court has held that a district court can implicitly accept a plea agreement.
Morales-Sosa, 191 F.3d at 587. In Morales-Sosa, this court held that, because
the district court did not explicitly reject the plea agreement and defendant
received the benefit of the plea, the court implicitly accepted the agreement.
Id.
The court never explicitly rejected the plea agreement, and Padilla
received the benefit of that agreement. In that regard, the only promise
Padilla received from the Government was that it would not bring any
additional charges against him based upon the same underlying conduct.
Padilla asserts there are charges that hypothetically could be brought in the
future if the Government ignored the plea agreement. This, however, is pure
speculation, as no such charges have been brought. The district court,
therefore, implicitly accepted the plea agreement.
AFFIRMED.
3