United States v. Caviedes-Zuniga, No. 19-1104 (7th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary
Want to stay in the know about new opinions from the Seventh Circuit US Court of Appeals?
Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More ›
You already receive new opinion summaries from Seventh Circuit US Court of Appeals. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here.
Caviedes-Zuniga pleaded guilty to distributing 140 grams of heroin. 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B). He was sentenced to 111 months’ imprisonment, 77 months below the 188 -235 months recommended by the Sentencing Guidelines. After filing a notice of appeal, he told his lawyer that he wants a trial. He also told his attorney that he does not wish to contest his sentence if the conviction remains in place. Counsel asked to withdraw, representing that he deems the appeal frivolous; he argued that a successful appeal could upset the sentence and harm the defendant. The Seventh Circuit agreed and dismissed the appeal as frivolous, allowing counsel to withdraw. A judge might well reconsider the sentencing discount for acceptance of responsibility on learning that on appeal Caviedes-Zuniga tried to have the plea vacated, even if the attempt failed.
Download PDF
In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 19-1104 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MARIO CAVIEDES-ZUNIGA, Defendant-Appellant. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. No. 1:15-CR-00197(1) — Robert W. Gettleman, Judge. ____________________ SUBMITTED JANUARY 21, 2020 — DECIDED JANUARY 27, 2020 ____________________ Before EASTERBROOK, BRENNAN, and SCUDDER, Circuit Judges. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge. Mario Caviedes-Zuniga pleaded guilty to distributing 140 grams of heroin. 21 U.S.C. §841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B). He was sentenced to 111 months’ imprisonment, a term 77 months below the low end of the range (188 to 235 months) recommended by the Sentencing Guidelines. After ling a notice of appeal, he told his lawyer that he wants a trial. He also told counsel that he does not 2 No. 19-1104 wish to contest his sentence, if the conviction remains in place. Counsel evaluated the potential arguments and has asked to withdraw, representing that he deems the appeal frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Caviedes-Zuniga received a copy of this submission but did not respond. See Circuit Rule 51(b). Before ling motions and briefs under Anders, criminaldefense lawyers should nd out whether their clients wish to contest their guilty pleas. See, e.g., United States v. Konczak, 683 F.3d 348 (7th Cir. 2012); United States v. Knox, 287 F.3d 667 (7th Cir. 2002). As those decisions explain, a plea bargain may provide a defendant with substantial bene ts—for example, dismissal of some counts of an indictment, a sentence reduction for accepting responsibility, or a concession by the prosecutor about the quantity of drugs or nancial loss aeributable to the defendant’s course of conduct—that would be lost if the plea were withdrawn on grounds such as a district judge’s failure to provide all of the advice required by Fed. R. Crim. P. 11. Before presenting arguments that could make the defendant worse o , we held, counsel should obtain the defendant’s informed consent to the risks. If the defendant is content to let the guilty plea stand, counsel need not advance or discuss potential ways to have the plea vacated. “Appellate lawyers are not obliged to raise issues that could boomerang on their clients; it is no failure of advocacy to leave well enough alone.” Knox, 287 F.3d at 671. Caviedes-Zuniga’s lawyer contends that the same principle applies to sentencing, for a successful e ort to upset a sentence may harm a defendant. See, e.g., United States v. Masters, 978 F.2d 281 (7th Cir. 1992). Caviedes-Zuniga’s situation shows why. His sentence, years below the lower bound No. 19-1104 3 of the applicable range, easily could rise on remand. The district court gave him substantial credit for accepting responsibility. A judge might well reconsider that discount on learning that on appeal Caviedes-Zuniga tried to have the plea vacated, even if the aeempt failed. The district judge also observed that Caviedes-Zuniga had been induced by his family to enter the drug trade, had spent time in pretrial detention (in Colombia as well as the United States), and had assisted a prosecutor in Florida during an investigation of counterfeiting. If we were to vacate the sentence, the case could be reassigned to a judge who would weigh these maeers less favorably to Caviedes-Zuniga. And of course new criminal conduct (or misconduct in prison) might come to light before a resentencing, a ecting the Guidelines’ range or the appropriate exercise of discretion. A challenge to a sentence, no less than a challenge to the validity of a guilty plea, carries risks as well as conceivable bene ts for a defendant. Lawyers therefore must ensure that a defendant understands these risks and makes an informed choice whether to contest the sentence. Counsel assures us that he discussed the risks and bene ts with CaviedesZuniga, who decided not to dispute his sentence. It was accordingly unnecessary for counsel to discuss, under the Anders procedure, potential arguments in support of resentencing, and it is also unnecessary for us to discuss them. As we mentioned earlier, Caviedes-Zuniga did ask his lawyer to challenge the guilty plea. Counsel reviewed several potential arguments but concluded that all are frivolous. For the reasons given in a nonprecedential order issued contemporaneously with this opinion, we agree with counsel’s 4 No. 19-1104 assessment. We therefore grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and dismiss the appeal as frivolous.
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.
