United States v. Ornelas, No. 14-50533 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseAfter signing a plea agreement admitting to drug distribution, but before sentencing, defendant disappeared and lost contact with his lawyer. The district court proceeded with sentencing in absentia and imposed a prison term of 120 months. Defendant was subsequently arrested and appealed his sentence as violating the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and the Due Process Clause to the Constitution. Assuming for purposes of this opinion that due process and Rule 43 are coextensive, the court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it sentenced defendant in abstentia. In this case, the district court made a fact finding that is supported by the record that defendant had "absented himself" from the proceedings, which is a finding of voluntary absence required by Rule 43. Taken together, the facts in the record support both the district court’s determination that defendant was voluntarily absent from the hearing and its decision to proceed with sentencing. Because defendant concedes that due process provides only the protections of Rule 43 and no more, the district court's actions likewise did not violate defendant's constitutional rights. The court rejected defendant's remaining arguments and enforced the appeal waiver, dismissing the appeal.
Court Description: Criminal Law. The panel dismissed an appeal from a sentence imposed in absentia in a case in which the defendant disappeared and lost contact with his lawyer after he signed a plea agreement and entered a guilty plea to conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine. The panel observed that under Fed. R. Crim. P. 43, the defendant’s right to be present at sentencing can be waived, and that so long as the defendant’s absence is voluntary, the district court may proceed in absentia. Seeing no reason for departing from the standard in cases concerning trials conducted in absentia, the panel reviewed the district court’s sentencing decision for abuse of discretion, and reviewed the district court’s factual determination that the defendant was “voluntarily absent” from the proceedings for clear error. The panel held that the facts in the record support both the district court’s determination that the defendant was voluntarily absent from the hearing and its decision to proceed with sentencing, and that because the defendant concedes that due process provides only the protections of Rule 43 and no more, the district court’s actions did not violate the defendant’s constitutional rights. The panel held that the defendant’s waiver of his right to be present at sentencing likewise waived his right under Fed. R. Crim. P. 32 to review the presentence report. UNITED STATES V. ORNELAS 3 The panel therefore concluded that the sentence imposed by the district court was not unlawful, and, accordingly, applied the valid appeal waiver contained in the defendant’s plea agreement.
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.