United States v. Miguel Angel Reyna-Segovia
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Miguel Angel REYNA-SEGOVIA, Appellant
Opinion
PER CURIAM.
The Government charged Miguel Angel Reyna-Segovia with conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 (a)(1) and 846 (1994). Reyna-Segovia initially pleaded guilty to the charge, but then, against the repeated advice of counsel, moved to withdraw his plea. The district court found Reyna-Segovia met his burden on the factors warranting withdrawal, and granted the motion.
See United States v. Prior, 107 F.3d 654, 657 (8th Cir.1997), petition for cert, filed, No. 96-8478 (U.S. Apr.3, 1997). At trial, co-conspirators testified about their drug activity with Reyna-Segovia. Based on this testimony, the jury convicted Reyna-Segovia and at sentencing the district court attributed more methamphetamine to him than the plea agreement had. Having lost his gamble with the jury and having received a longer sentence, Reyna-Segovia contends on appeal the district court should have denied his motion to withdraw his plea. According to Reyna-Segovia, the district court should have disbelieved him at the withdrawal hearing and should have *646 warned him a jury would likely convict him. We disagree. Reyna-Segovia received the withdrawal he sought, and now must accept the consequences of his request.
Cf. United States v. Owens, 902 F.2d 1154, 1157 (4th Cir.1990). More appropriately, Reyna-Segovia challenges his jury conviction on several grounds. We reject them all. Given the overwhelming evidence against Reyna-Segovia, a reasonable jury could easily find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
See United States v. McMurray, 34 F.3d 1405, 1412 (8th Cir.1994). Because the Government’s use of a paid informant was permissible, see United States v. King, 803 F.2d 387, 390-91 (8th Cir.1986) (per curiam), the prosecutor did not commit misconduct at Reyna-Segovia’s trial.
See United States v. Flores-Mireles, 112 F.3d 337, 341 (8th Cir.1997). Lastly, Reyna-Segovia should raise his claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel collaterally rather than on direct appeal.
See United States v. Kenyon, 7 F.3d 783, 785 (8th Cir.1993). We thus affirm Reyna-Segovia’s conviction.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 5 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.