Case ID: f-appx_272/html/0414-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Charlton Ray McDONALD, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 07-40726
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    April 4, 2008.
    Randall A. Blake, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of Texas, Sherman, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Robert Gerard Arrambide, Federal Defender’s Office Eastern District of Texas, Tyler, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before KING, DAVIS and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Charlton Ray McDonald pleaded guilty to the possession of child pornography and was sentenced to 120 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release.

He argues on appeal that the district court erred in denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. He contends that he was entitled to have his plea withdrawn because his counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate or advise him concerning the defense of necessity before advising him to plead guilty.

When determining whether to allow a defendant to withdraw his guilty plea, the district court should consider whether: (1) the defendant has asserted his innocence, (2) withdrawal would prejudice the Government, (3) the defendant has delayed in filing his withdrawal motion, (4) withdrawal would substantially inconvenience the court, (5) close assistance of counsel was available, (6) the original plea was knowing and voluntary, and (7) withdrawal would waste judicial resources. United States v. Carr, 740 F.2d 339, 343-44 (5th Cir.1984). McDonald has not shown that the district court abused its discretion in determining that he was not entitled under the Cmr factors to have his guilty plea withdrawn. See United States v. Powell, 354 F.3d 362, 370 (5th Cir.2003); Carr, 740 F.2d at 343-44.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.