USA v. Delarosa, No. 08-50943 (5th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED No. 08-50943 Summary Calendar July 21, 2009 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. JOHNNY DELAROSA, also known as Juanillo De La Rosa, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 1:08-CR-84-2 Before SMITH, STEWART and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Johnny Delarosa appeals the life sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction to conspiracy with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine. Delarosa contends that his guilty plea must be set aside because he was not adequately informed of the possible sentencing consequences of his guilty plea. Specifically, he contends that the Government failed to adequately notify him that it was going to use his prior 1985 California conviction for possession of marijuana for sale to support an enhancement to life imprisonment. He * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .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. 08-50943 further asserts that the Government failed to notify him that it was going to present evidence of a conspiracy involving 170 kilograms of cocaine in support of a life sentence. He argues that the totality of the circumstances warrants the withdrawal of his guilty plea. Delarosa s assertions are not supported by the record. The Government specifically advised Delarosa via indictment of the two convictions it planned to use to support a life sentence enhancement upon conviction. See United States v. Arnold, 467 F.3d 880, 886 (5th Cir. 2006). Further, as the district court noted at the sentencing hearing, [i]t s preposterous that [Delarosa] states he had no notice of a life sentence when one reviews the rearraignment transcript. The rearraignment transcript reveals that the district court advised Delarosa several times that he was pleading guilty under circumstances where [he was] going to get life. See United States v. Jones, 905 F.2d 867, 868-69 (5th Cir. 1990); United States v. Pearson, 910 F.2d 221, 223 (5th Cir. 1990). A review of the totality of the circumstances in the instant case indicates Delarosa was adequately informed of the possible sentencing consequences and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. See United States v. Powell, 354 F.3d 362, 370 (5th Cir. 2003); United States v. Carr, 740 F.2d 339, 343-44 (5th Cir. 1984). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
