Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02684/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02684-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Torian Taliaferro
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

*

The Honorable Jean C. Hamilton, United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Missouri. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-2684

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Eastern

v. * District of Missouri.

*

Torian Taliaferro, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: May 9, 2005

Filed: May 16, 2005 

___________

Before BENTON, LAY, and FAGG, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Torian Taliaferro pleaded guilty to two drug counts and a firearm charge.

During the plea colloquy held on the Friday before trial, Taliaferro expressed some

reluctance because of “some miscommunication or something” with his attorney

regarding the possible sentence, and Taliaferro asked for “a public defender or

something to just look over everything.” The district court*

 gave Taliaferro and his

attorney time for a meeting. During the meeting, Taliaferro, his attorney, his family,

and government counsel discussed the possibility of a reduced sentence if Taliaferro

Appellate Case: 04-2684 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/16/2005 Entry ID: 1903156
-2-

cooperated with the government. When Taliaferro returned to the courtroom, he

indicated he was willing to plead guilty. The district court then resumed the colloquy,

which made clear Taliaferro understood what he was doing, he was not promised

anything or pressured, he understood his rights and the punishment options, and he

was satisfied with his attorney. Based on Taliaferro’s responses during the colloquy,

the district court found Taliaferro’s guilty plea was knowing and voluntary, and thus

accepted the written plea agreement. 

On appeal, Taliaferro first contends the district court should have granted him

new counsel. Because Taliaferro failed to show a justifiable dissatisfaction with his

attorney, the district court was not required to provide Taliaferro with new counsel

or a second hearing to delve into the minor miscommunication problem. See United

States v. Long Crow, 37 F.3d 1319, 1324 (8th Cir. 1994); United States v. Armstrong,

112 F.3d 342, 345 (8th Cir. 1997). Taliaferro never alleged a conflict of interest, an

irreconcilable conflict, or a total breakdown of communication, see id., and in both

the colloquy and the written plea agreement, Taliaferro expressed his satisfaction with

his attorney’s representation. 

Taliaferro also argues his guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary because

he felt rushed and pressured. In responding to the district court during the plea

colloquy, however, Taliaferro indicated he knew the crimes to which he was pleading

guilty, their corresponding punishments, and the rights he waived by pleading guilty.

Further, Taliaferro admitted he was not forced, coerced, or threatened to plead guilty.

Taliaferro thus made a voluntary and intelligent choice among the alternative courses

of action. 

Accordingly, we affirm Taliaferro’s conviction.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-2684 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/16/2005 Entry ID: 1903156