A trail court in the Middle District of Florida confirms that defendants can’t challenge non-jurisdictional defects after they have plead guilty. The facts here are nothing knew to readers of the MDLEA blog:
“While on routine patrol, the CGC Hamilton detected two [go-fast vessels (GFVs)] with bales of suspected contraband on deck approximately 500 yards from each other. CGC Hamilton launched its helicopter and over the horizon (OTH) vessel to interdict the GFVs and conduct a right of visit inquiry on both GFVs. Coast Guard personnel observed GFV #1 jettisoning the bales of suspected contraband before getting underway. The second GFV…did the same. Both GFVs failed to heave-to after being instructed to do so by the Coast Guard. The Hamilton’s helicopter disabled both GFV’s and identified the two separate, distinct debris fields. The OTH conducted a right of visit for GFV #1. No master was identified, there was no claim of registry for the GFV, no indicia of nationality other than an Ecuadorian flag painted on the hull. The USCG contacted the government of Ecuador, which responded it could neither confirm nor deny registry for GFV #1. The Hamilton recovered twenty-five-(25) bales from the debris field for GFV # 1.”
The bales recovered by Coast Guard tested positive for cocaine and weighed approximately 846 kilograms. There were four individuals on-board, all of which were brought to Florida and prosecuted under 46 U.S.C. § 70503(a), et. seq. After pleading guilty to the charged offenses, defendant Rodriguez-Diaz attempted to vacate his sentence and challenge: (1) the United States’ jurisdiction under the MDLEA; and (2) that the Coast Guard exercised “hostile aggression” toward the vessel and subjected him to “cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment.”
Concerning defendant’s first argument, the court simply pointed to long-standing precedent in the 11th Circuit establishing the constitutionality of the MDLEA.1United States v. Rodriguez-Diaz, No. 8:18-CR-343-SDM-MRM, 2023 WL 2264140, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 28, 2023) (citing United States v. Tinoco, 304 F.3d 1088 (11th Cir. 2002); United States v. Bellaizac-Hurtado, 700 F.3d 1245 (11th Cir. 2012); United States v. Napa Moreira, 810 F. App’x 702, 705 (11th Cir.)3 (“[T]he Piracies and Felonies Clause empowers Congress to prosecute crimes committed on the high seas and, given that trafficking narcotics is ‘condemned universally by law-abiding nations,’ it is not ‘fundamentally unfair’ to punish those who traffic drugs on the high seas.”), cert. denied, 141 S. Ct. 627 (2020)). Defendant’s second challenge was no more difficult for the court. In short, the court, relying on precedent from the Supreme Court in Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258, 267 (1973), stated that,
[A] guilty plea represents a break in the chain of events which has preceded it in the criminal process. When a criminal defendant has solemnly admitted in open court that he is in fact guilty of the offense with which he is charged, he may not thereafter raise independent claims relating to the deprivation of constitutional rights that occurred prior to the entry of the guilty plea.
In other words, after a defendant pleads guilty, they are generally only able to assert jurisdictional challenges or voluntariness to the plea (i.e. whether the underlying plea was both counseled and voluntary) challenges, not non-jurisdictional challenges (i.e. delay between a defendant’s arrest under the MDLEA and their appearance before a magistrate judge). As such, since Rodriguez-Diaz had already plead guilty he was unable to challenge the force used to stop his vessel or the conditions of his confinement as a basis for challenging his conviction, and his motion under Section 2255 to vacate his sentence was denied.
The full case can be found here.
United States v. Rodriguez-Diaz, No. 8:18-CR-343-SDM-MRM, 2023 WL 2264140, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 28, 2023)
- 1United States v. Rodriguez-Diaz, No. 8:18-CR-343-SDM-MRM, 2023 WL 2264140, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 28, 2023) (citing United States v. Tinoco, 304 F.3d 1088 (11th Cir. 2002); United States v. Bellaizac-Hurtado, 700 F.3d 1245 (11th Cir. 2012); United States v. Napa Moreira, 810 F. App’x 702, 705 (11th Cir.)3 (“[T]he Piracies and Felonies Clause empowers Congress to prosecute crimes committed on the high seas and, given that trafficking narcotics is ‘condemned universally by law-abiding nations,’ it is not ‘fundamentally unfair’ to punish those who traffic drugs on the high seas.”), cert. denied, 141 S. Ct. 627 (2020)).