United States v. Zeferino Aurelia ( 2021 )


Menu:
  •                         NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
    To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
    United States Court of Appeals
    For the Seventh Circuit
    Chicago, Illinois 60604
    Submitted October 20, 2021
    Decided October 20, 2021
    Before
    FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge
    DANIEL A. MANION, Circuit Judge
    DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge
    No. 21-1442
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                         Appeal from the United States District
    Plaintiff-Appellee,                          Court for the Southern District of
    Illinois.
    v.                                          No. 4:20-CR-40020-JPG-1
    ZEFERINO CELSO MORALES                            J. Phil Gilbert,
    AURELIA,                                          Judge.
    Defendant-Appellant.
    ORDER
    Zeferino Celso Morales Aurelia pleaded guilty to attempting to entice a minor to
    engage in sexual activity, see 
    18 U.S.C. § 2422
    (b), and was sentenced to the mandatory
    minimum of 120 months in prison. He appeals, but counsel asserts that the appeal is
    frivolous and moves to withdraw. See Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
     (1967). With the
    assistance of a fellow prisoner, Morales Aurelia opposes the motion. See CIR. R. 51(b).
    No. 21-1442                                                                          Page 2
    Counsel’s brief explains the nature of the case and addresses potential issues that an
    appeal of this kind might involve. Because their analysis appears thorough, we limit our
    review to the issues that she and Morales Aurelia discuss. See United States v. Bey,
    
    748 F.3d 774
    , 776 (7th Cir. 2014).
    Counsel begins by evaluating the validity of the plea but does not discuss
    whether she consulted Morales Aurelia about the risks of challenging his plea. See
    United States v. Konczak, 
    683 F.3d 348
    , 349 (7th Cir. 2012). The omission is harmless,
    however, because the record shows, and counsel correctly concludes, that any challenge
    to his plea would be frivolous. 
    Id.
     Morales Aurelia did not move to withdraw his plea in
    the district court, so we would review the district court’s acceptance of it for plain error.
    United States v. Davenport, 
    719 F.3d 616
    , 618 (7th Cir. 2013). No arguable plain error
    occurred here. Following Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the
    district court explained the nature of the charge, informed Morales Aurelia of potential
    penalties (including immigration consequences), determined the factual basis for his
    plea, and confirmed that his decision was knowing and voluntary. The court did so by
    providing Morales Aurelia, who comes from a Mixteco-speaking community in Mexico,
    with a Spanish-language interpreter. During the plea colloquy, Morales Aurelia
    confirmed that he understood the proceedings. Although he now says that he
    sometimes had to strain to understand the interpreter’s Spanish, Morales Aurelia does
    not argue that he was unable to follow the proceedings. Thus, any challenge that the
    plea was not knowing and voluntary would be frivolous.
    Counsel next considers, and correctly rejects, a potential challenge to the
    substantive reasonableness of the 120-month prison sentence. Counsel does not state
    whether she discussed with Morales Aurelia the risks of such a challenge. See United
    States v. Caviedes-Zuniga, 
    948 F.3d 854
    , 856 (7th Cir. 2020). But again, any challenge
    would be pointless. Morales Aurelia did not object to the presentence investigation
    report, or the court’s adoption of its recommended Guideline range of 120 months to
    life in prison. More importantly, the conviction carries a mandatory minimum sentence
    of 120 months in prison. 
    18 U.S.C. § 2422
    (b). Thus, “[h]is sentence could not be lower if
    he were resentenced.” United States v. Melvin, 
    948 F.3d 848
    , 854 (7th Cir. 2020).
    Finally, both counsel and Morales Aurelia consider raising the issue of ineffective
    assistance of counsel on direct appeal. But an ineffective-assistance claim, which
    generally requires evidence outside of the record, is better suited to a collateral attack
    rather than a direct appeal. United States v. Cates, 
    950 F.3d 453
    , 456–57 (7th Cir. 2020).
    Counsel also represented Morales Aurelia in the district court and would be ill-
    No. 21-1442                                                                       Page 3
    positioned to argue that her own performance was deficient. See United States v. Rezin,
    
    322 F.3d 443
    , 445 (7th Cir. 2003).
    We GRANT counsel’s motion to withdraw and DISMISS the appeal.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 21-1442

Judges: Per Curiam

Filed Date: 10/20/2021

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/20/2021