US v. Sophia Zayas, No. 18-2154 (10th Cir. Feb. 6, 2020):
The Tenth Circuit reverses the district court’s denial of Ms. Zayas’ motion to withdraw her plea of guilty to the New Mexico crime of child abuse resulting in great bodily harm, through the Assimilated Crimes Act. When she pled, the required mens rea was criminal negligence, which could be satisfied by the government showing the defendant disregarded a risk of which she knew or should have known. Six months later, the New Mexico Supreme Court sua sponte overruled its precedent and held that the requisite mens rea was recklessness – that the defendant consciously disregarded a substantial and unjustifiable risk. Ms. Zayas moved to withdraw her guilty plea, arguing it was not knowing and voluntary because the district court had failed to adequately explain the mens rea requirement. The district court denied the motion, reasoning that the information adequately informed Ms. Zayas of the recklessness requirement and she had admitted facts consistent with that requirement. The Tenth Circuit reviewed the pleadings and the plea colloquy and concluded that nothing showed Ms. Zayas was told that the government would be required to prove that she actually knew, rather than merely should have known, of the risk. Moreover, she did not admit that she knew of the risk but repeatedly stated that she believed the government could prove that she should have known of the risk. The government argued it should be presumed her attorneys informed her of the recklessness mens rea at the time of her plea. The court rejected that argument because, at the time of the plea, there was no reason for her attorneys to so advise her. The mens rea at the time was negligence. Her attorneys had no notice that the government would be required to prove recklessness. Because subsequent developments in NM law made it clear that the negligence standard was not good law, she was not informed of the elements of the offense to which she pled guilty. Accordingly, her plea was not knowing and voluntary.
The Tenth Circuit reverses the district court’s denial of Ms. Zayas’ motion to withdraw her plea of guilty to the New Mexico crime of child abuse resulting in great bodily harm, through the Assimilated Crimes Act. When she pled, the required mens rea was criminal negligence, which could be satisfied by the government showing the defendant disregarded a risk of which she knew or should have known. Six months later, the New Mexico Supreme Court sua sponte overruled its precedent and held that the requisite mens rea was recklessness – that the defendant consciously disregarded a substantial and unjustifiable risk. Ms. Zayas moved to withdraw her guilty plea, arguing it was not knowing and voluntary because the district court had failed to adequately explain the mens rea requirement. The district court denied the motion, reasoning that the information adequately informed Ms. Zayas of the recklessness requirement and she had admitted facts consistent with that requirement. The Tenth Circuit reviewed the pleadings and the plea colloquy and concluded that nothing showed Ms. Zayas was told that the government would be required to prove that she actually knew, rather than merely should have known, of the risk. Moreover, she did not admit that she knew of the risk but repeatedly stated that she believed the government could prove that she should have known of the risk. The government argued it should be presumed her attorneys informed her of the recklessness mens rea at the time of her plea. The court rejected that argument because, at the time of the plea, there was no reason for her attorneys to so advise her. The mens rea at the time was negligence. Her attorneys had no notice that the government would be required to prove recklessness. Because subsequent developments in NM law made it clear that the negligence standard was not good law, she was not informed of the elements of the offense to which she pled guilty. Accordingly, her plea was not knowing and voluntary.
posted by Anonymous at 3:56 PM
<< Home