United States v. Sosa
| Docket Number | 2:19-cr-374 |
| Decision Date | 01 June 2022 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. JOSE SOSA Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Utah |
On May 19, 2021, Jose Sosa appeared before Magistrate Judge Bennett for a change of plea hearing. See Dkt. No. 48 at 1. During the plea colloquy, Judge Bennett asked, Id. at 6. Under oath, Mr. Sosa responded, “I feel good, Your Honor.” Id. Judge Bennett then asked, “Are you currently under the influence of any substance that would impede your ability to understand and answer my questions today?” Id. Mr. Sosa answered, “No, Your Honor.” Id. Judge Bennett also asked Mr Sosa's counsel, “in your interactions with Mr Sosa, have you noticed anything that would lead you to believe that he is not capable of entering a knowing and informed plea of guilty today?” Id. at 7. She responded, “No, Your Honor.” Id. Later in the plea colloquy, Judge Bennett explained the rights that Mr. Sosa would be waiving, the maximum penalties he would be facing, and the sentencing procedures. See id. at 7-11. Mr. Sosa affirmed that he understood the consequences of his plea. See id. He represented that all his questions were answered relating to the plea, that he was not threatened or forced to sign it, and that he understood the rights he was waiving in the agreement. See id. at 11-14.
Mr Sosa also signed the statement in advance of plea, and acknowledged, under oath, that he had done so. See id. at 11. In the statement in advance of plea, Mr. Sosa represented that his decision to plead guilty was the result of “full and careful thought, ” that he “was not under the influence of any drugs, medication or intoxicants when [he] made the decision to enter the plea, ” and that he had “no mental reservations regarding the plea.” Dkt. No. 47 at 7. “Based on Mr. Sosa's demeanor and his answers, ” Judge Bennett found Mr. Sosa “capable of entering a knowing and informed plea, ” and subsequently accepted that plea. Dkt. No. 48 at 7, 16.
On October 12, 2021, through new counsel, Mr. Sosa filed a motion to set aside his guilty plea under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(d). See Dkt. No. 54 at 1. Mr. Sosa represented that he had been taking “Effexor and Zyprexa for his mental health issues” at the time of his change of plea hearing and that “his state of mind” at that time “rendered him incapable of fully understanding what he was doing.” Id.
The court held a status conference on January 6, 2022. See Dkt. No. 63. The court explained that given Mr. Sosa's sworn testimony at the change of plea hearing and his signed statement in advance of plea, as well as the contemporaneous observations of Judge Bennett and Mr. Sosa's prior counsel, the court could not justify setting aside Mr. Sosa's plea based solely on the second-hand, unsworn representations made by counsel in the motion. Id. The court emphasized, however, that it was not willing to deny the motion without giving Mr. Sosa the opportunity to present testimony if he wished to do so-though the government would be permitted to cross-examine any defense witnesses and to present its own witnesses. Id.
On January 19, 2022, Mr. Sosa filed an addendum to his motion in which he represented that he would not take “the stand in support of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea” and that “he has no additional information to offer at this time.” Dkt. No. 64 at 1. The court then asked Mr. Sosa's counsel whether Mr. Sosa wished to present any other testimony or evidence to the court. Mr. Sosa's counsel responded, “There is nothing that we have to add.”
On January 24, 2022, the court ruled on Mr. Sosa's motion. See Dkt. No. 66. The court explained that it had warned Mr. Sosa that it would not grant the motion based solely on the arguments and unsworn factual assertions set forth in his motion and had “offered Defendant an opportunity to present testimony or other evidence in support of the motion.” Id. The court further noted that Mr. Sosa “has represented that he does not intend to testify and Defense counsel informed the court that [Mr. Sosa] does not intend to offer other evidence or testimony.” Id. (citation omitted). The court accordingly denied the motion “[i]n the absence of such evidence or testimony.”[1] Id.
Mr. Sosa filed a motion for reconsideration on March 8, 2022. A district court may grant such a motion “when the court has misapprehended the facts, a party's position, or the law.” United States v. Christy, 739 F.3d 534, 539 (10th Cir. 2014) “Specific grounds include: ‘(1) an intervening change in the controlling law, (2) new evidence previously unavailable, and (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice.'” Id. (citation omitted). But a motion to reconsider “should not be used to revisit issues already addressed or advance arguments that could have been raised earlier.” Id.
Here Mr. Sosa has not articulated any proper ground for reconsideration. Instead, the sole basis for reconsideration is that Mr. Sosa has now decided that he is willing to testify. See Dkt. No. 68. Crucially though, the court already offered Mr. Sosa the chance to do just that and warned him that his motion would be denied absent testimony or...
To continue reading
Request your trial