UNITED STATES v. HURTADO (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-07-21No. No. 20-50221

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed Hurtado's convictions and sentence to the extent permitted by his appeal waiver and dismissed the remainder of his appeal, finding no arguable grounds for relief on the claims he was permitted to raise.

David Hurtado Jr. appealed his convictions for methamphetamine distribution and felon in possession of a firearm, along with his 240-month sentence. Hurtado had signed an appeal waiver that limited his right to challenge his convictions and sentence, with a narrow exception allowing him to raise claims that his guilty pleas were involuntary. The court reviewed the record independently and found no credible arguments that Hurtado's pleas were made involuntarily or that any sentencing issue fell outside the scope of his waiver.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Validity and enforceability of appeal waivers in guilty plea agreements
Voluntariness of guilty pleas
Scope of appellable issues when defendant has waived appeal rights

Procedural posture

Hurtado appealed his guilty-plea convictions and sentence to the appellate court after his appeal counsel filed an Anders brief indicating no meritorious grounds for relief existed.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

David Anthony Hurtado, Jr., appeals from the district courts judgment and challenges his guilty-plea convictions and aggregate 240-month sentence for possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A)(viii), and being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Hurtados counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided Hurtado the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

Hurtado waived his right to appeal his convictions, with the exception of an appeal based on a claim that his pleas were involuntary. Hurtado also waived the right to appeal most aspects of his sentence. Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief as to the voluntariness of Hurtados pleas or any aspect of the sentence that falls outside the scope of the appeal waiver. We, therefore, affirm as to those issues. Having found no arguable issues as to the enforceability of the appeal waiver, we dismiss the remainder of the appeal. See United States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 988 (9th Cir. 2009).

Counsels motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

AFFIRMED in part; DISMISSED in part.