Defendant's Plea Was Knowing, Voluntary

U.S. v. Vidal, 2009 WL 350653 (2/13/09) (Published) - The 10th holds the defendant's plea was knowing and voluntary. Even though no one thought it was an Alford plea at the time, the 10th characterizes the plea as such because a number of times the defendant insisted she didn't know the drugs were in the car but on occasion expressed a willingness to plead guilty to possessing the drugs with the intent to distribute them. The 10th found there was enough evidence to support the defendant's actual guilt to support an Alford plea, [nervousness, air fresheners, inconsistent stories, the co-defendant's self-serving accusations], and it seemed as though the defendant understood one of the elements was an intent to distribute, suggesting a "knowing and strategic" plea. While, in hindsight, the plea may not have been wise, because the defendant got the mandatory minimum ten years after failing to debrief to qualify for safety valve, at the time of the plea she intended to enter the plea agreement. The district court also did not err when it failed to hold a competency hearing after counsel expressed doubts about the defendant's competence, given her decision to plead guilty but not debrief. As grounds for this conclusion, the 10th relies on the defendant's assurances at the plea hearing that she reviewed the charges and penalties, discussed her rights with counsel and signed a plea agreement saying she understood everything. In other words, she must be competent because she says she is.