Unpublished Disposition, 935 F.2d 277 (9th Cir. 1991)

No. 90-10344.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Before ALARCON and RYMER, Circuit Judges, and McDONALD^** , District Judge.

MEMORANDUM^*** 

Convicted of Possession With Intent to Distribute a Controlled Substance (marijuana) in violation of 21 U.S.C. 841(a) (1) and 841(b) (1) (B) (vii) before the Honorable Alfredo C. Marquez, United States District Judge, District of Arizona, defendant-appellant Adalberto Santiago-Ansaldo now appeals contending his plea was not knowingly and voluntarily made.

The longstanding test for determining the validity of a guilty plea is "whether the plea represents a voluntary and intelligent choice among the alternative courses of action open to the defendant." North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 31 (1970).

Defendant-appellant argues that he did not fully understand the nature of the charge against him as required by Fed. R. Crim. P. 11. The record belies his assertion.

The sufficiency of any colloquy between the judge and the defendant as to the nature of the charges depends upon "the peculiar facts of each situation, looking into 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." United States v. Kamer, 781 F.2d 1380, 1384 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 819 (1986).

At the plea hearing, the district court judge advised defendant-appellant, represented by appointed counsel, that he was charged with possession with intent to distribute between 100 and 1000 kilograms of marijuana. After the government set forth its "factual basis" for the charge, the district court judge inquired as to defendant-appellant's role in the offense. Defendant-appellant admitted he was paid to keep the marijuana at his house and watch over it. There is no question defendant-appellant understood the nature of the charge against him.

The judgment of conviction is AFFIRMED.