United States v. Padilla, No. 17-2025 (8th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary
Want to stay in the know about new opinions from the Eighth Circuit US Court of Appeals?
Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More ›
You already receive new opinion summaries from Eighth Circuit US Court of Appeals. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here.
The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence after he pleaded guilty to drug and firearms charges. The court held that no plain procedural error occurred, and any such error would have been harmless because the district court sentenced defendant to the statutory minimum. Furthermore, the sentence was not subject to review for reasonableness because it was statutorily imposed. In this case, there was no basis for defendant's claim that his guilty plea to all three counts was not knowing and voluntary or that the district court denied his Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial. Finally, the court granted counsel's motion to withdraw.
Court Description: Per Curiam - Before Wollman, Loken and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Criminal case -Sentencing. Anders case. No plain procedural error occurred at sentencing, and any such error would be harmless as defendant was sentenced to the statutory minimum; there is no basis on this record for a claim that defendant's guilty plea to all three counts was not knowing and voluntary or a claim that the district court denied his Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial; Judge Kelly, dissenting.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 17-2025 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Christopher Brian Padilla lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City ____________ Submitted: April 20, 2018 Filed: May 8, 2018 [Published] ____________ Before WOLLMAN, LOKEN, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. In this direct criminal appeal, Christopher Padilla challenges the sentence the district court1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to drug and firearms charges. His 1 The Honorable Beth Phillips, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. counsel has moved to withdraw and submitted a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), addressing whether the sentence was based on procedural error, or was otherwise substantively unreasonable, and stating there are no non-frivolous issues, as Padilla was sentenced to the statutory minimum. After careful review, we conclude that no plain procedural error occurred, and any such error would have been harmless because the district court sentenced Padilla to the statutory minimum, see United States v. Henson, 550 F.3d 739, 740-41 (8th Cir. 2008); cf. United States v. Chacon, 330 F.3d 1065, 1066 (8th Cir. 2003); and that the sentence is not subject to review for reasonableness, as it was statutorily imposed, see United States v. Gregg, 451 F.3d 930, 937 (8th Cir. 2006). We have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal. With regard to the issue identified in Judge Kelly’s dissent, a criminal defendant does not have “an absolute right to have his guilty plea accepted by the court.” Lynch v. Overholser, 369 U.S. 705, 719 (1962). At sentencing, Padilla’s attorney asked if the court would “allow Mr. Padilla to enter pleas of guilty to Count One and Three, and then if we would have a trial it would be solely on Count 2.” The government objected, and the court denied the request. Padilla did not object to that ruling, which was not a plain error abuse of the district court’s discretion. After a break in the hearing of approximately seventy five minutes, during which Padilla had ample time to confer again with his attorney, he returned to court and pleaded guilty to all three counts. On this record, there is no basis for a claim that Padilla’s guilty plea to all three counts was not knowing and voluntary, or a claim that the district court denied his Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm. -2- KELLY, Circuit Judge, dissenting. On November 23, 2016, Christopher Padilla came before the district court to change his plea. During the course of the hearing, the court asked the government to “establish the factual basis the government would prove if th[e] case were to go to trial.” Padilla, through his attorney, said he agreed to the factual bases underlying Counts 1 and 3, but had some reservations regarding Count 2. After further discussion, Padilla’s attorney asked—because Count 2 had “been the main sticking point in this case”—if the district court would “still allow Mr. Padilla to enter pleas of guilty to Count One and Three, and then if we would have a trial it would solely be on Count Two?” The government objected, and the district court stated, “I’m not willing to go down that path. I think the charged counts are what he needs to plead guilty to, and we either need to have a trial or a plea to the indictment as it currently stands.” Left with those two choices, Padilla then pleaded guilty to all three counts in the indictment. As the court notes, a defendant does not have “an absolute right to have his guilty plea accepted by the court,” Lynch, 369 U.S. at 719, under certain established circumstances, see id. (citing Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (“Before the court accepts a plea of guilty . . . , the court must inform the defendant of, and determine that the defendant understands, [his rights, the nature of the charges, and other sentencing considerations].”)). But based on the plea colloquy here—unlike in Lynch—it appears Padilla understood the rights he was giving up by pleading guilty, and that his plea to Counts 1 and 3 would have been knowing and voluntary. Whether a district court has the discretion to reject a voluntary guilty plea by a competent defendant—for reasons of judicial efficiency or otherwise—is, in my view, a nonfrivolous issue. Compare United States v. Michel-Galviz, 415 F.3d 946, 948 (8th Cir. 2005) (“[A] district court has broad discretion in deciding to accept or reject a guilty plea.” (cleaned up)), with id. (“A defendant has no absolute right to plead guilty to a charge other than that in the indictment.” (emphasis added)), and United States v. -3- Carnahan, 684 F.3d 732, 737 (8th Cir. 2012) (“The discretion to reject a tendered guilty plea is most often exercised when the defendant cannot or will not provide the adequate factual basis for the plea . . . .”). Because I believe the record supports a non-frivolous claim for appeal, see Penson, 488 U.S. at 82–84 (1988), I respectfully dissent. I would deny counsel’s motion to withdraw and order additional briefing on (1) whether the district court erred in ruling that it would not accept Padilla’s guilty plea to Counts 1 and 3 if he did not also plead guilty to Count 2 of the indictment; and (2) whether in doing so, the district court denied Padilla his Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial on Count 2. ______________________________ -4-
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.
