Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

United States v. Steven Yamashiro

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided June 12, 2015No. 12-50608Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partBea, Circuit Judge

I agree with the majority that we should affirm the district court’s decision to deny Steven Yamashiro’s' motion to withdraw his guilty plea. But I disagree that the district court committed “plain error” when it permitted one victim to allocute without Yamashiro’s preferred counsel present.

The standard of review matters. We must apply plain-error review when, as here, there was no objection lodged in the district court to the claimed error. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135, 129 S.Ct. 1423, 173 L.Ed.2d 266 (2009). The Supreme Court has explained the plain-error standard is a…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Puckett v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
  2. Antonio Darnell Robinson v. John Ignacio, WardenCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2004
  3. W. Patrick Kenna v. United States District Court for the Central District of CaliforniaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2006
  4. United States v. GarrettCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1999
  5. United States v. Robert D'AmoreCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1995

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API