Unpublished Disposition, 927 F.2d 611 (9th Cir. 1989)

MEMORANDUM^** 

Maria de Los Angeles-Castaneda de Lopez appeals her conviction, following a guilty plea, on one count of importation of a controlled substance in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960. She contends that the district court erred by accepting her guilty plea without establishing a factual basis for the plea and without informing her of the nature of the charges against her. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm.

Before accepting a guilty plea, the district court must address the defendant personally in open court and determine that the defendant knows and understands the nature of the charge to which she is pleading guilty. Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c) (1); United States v. Kamer, 781 F.2d 1380, 1383 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 819 (1986).

[T]he sufficiency of any particular colloquy between the judge and the defendant as to the nature of the charges will "vary from case to case, depending on the peculiar facts of each situation, looking to both the complexity of the charges and the personal characteristics of the defendant, such as his age, education, intelligence, the alacrity of his responses, and also whether he is represented by counsel."

Kamer, 781 F.2d at 1384 (quoting United States v. Wetterlin, 583 F.2d 346, 351 (7th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1127 (1979)).

The district court must also establish a factual basis for a guilty plea. Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(f); United States v. Rivera-Ramirez, 715 F.2d 453, 457 (9th Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1215 (1984). While no specific method is prescribed, "it must be established on the record that there is sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that the defendant is guilty." Rivera-Ramirez, 715 F.2d at 457. A defendant may be found guilty of the knowing commission of a crime if the circumstances of its commission "would have put any reasonable person on notice that there was a "high probability' that the [activity] was illegal." United States v. Nicholson, 677 F.2d 706, 710 (1982); see United States v. Jewell, 532 F.2d 697, 704 (9th Cir.) (en banc) (holding that " 'knowingly' includes a mental state in which the defendant is aware that the fact in question is highly probable but consciously avoids enlightenment", and upholding conviction where evidence showed that defendant should have suspected he was importing drugs), cert. denied, 426 U.S. 951 (1976).

Here, Castaneda de Lopez was stopped at the United States-Mexico border driving a car in which approximately 244 pounds of marijuana had been concealed. At the plea hearing, she was represented by counsel and had the assistance of an interpreter. Castaneda de Lopez had completed high school in Mexico and pursued further schooling in the United States. She was faced with a relatively simple criminal charge, and she responded intelligently to the district court's questions.

After defense counsel waived the reading of the indictment, the district court informed Castaneda de Lopez that she was charged with "the importation of a controlled substance" (RT 6/19/89 at 5). Castaneda de Lopez responded affirmatively when asked if she understood that this was the charge, and subsequently asserted that she had discussed the facts with her lawyer and understood both the charge and the consequences of her plea bargain. When the district court asked why her conduct made her guilty of the charge, Castaneda de Lopez stated, through her counsel, that she had met an individual named Luis Mendez in Mexico and agreed to drive the vehicle across the border for him, that she expected to receive an undetermined financial benefit for doing so, and that " [s]he had good reason to know that there was something of a contraband nature in the vehicle, having to do with a narcotic substance" (RT 6/19/89 at 10).

This colloquy established that Castaneda de Lopez understood the charge against her. It also established an adequate factual basis for her plea, including the fact that she possessed the requisite mental state. See Nicholson, 677 F.2d at 710; cf. Kamer, 781 F.2d at 1384.

Therefore, the district court properly accepted the guilty plea.

AFFIRMED.