Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca11-19-11395/USCOURTS-ca11-19-11395-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Dale Lutgen
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 19-11395

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 0:18-cr-60035-BB-1

DALE LUTGEN, 

 Defendant-Appellant,

 versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(February 11, 2020)

Before WILLIAM PRYOR, JILL PRYOR, and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges.

USCA11 Case: 19-11395 Date Filed: 02/11/2020 Page: 1 of 5
2

PER CURIAM: 

Dale Lutgen appeals his convictions after pleading guilty to two counts of 

production of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a). No 

reversible error has been shown; we affirm.

On appeal, Lutgen challenges the district court’s denial of his motion to 

withdraw his guilty plea. Briefly stated, Lutgen contends that he was denied close 

assistance of counsel for his plea because (1) his lawyer failed to advise him 

adequately about all discovery provided by the government; and (2) his lawyer

refused to investigate evidence pertinent to a potential defense Lutgen wanted to 

pursue. 

We review the denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea under an abuseof-discretion standard. United States v. Brehm, 442 F.3d 1291, 1298 (11th Cir. 

2006). No abuse of discretion occurs “unless the denial is ‘arbitrary or 

unreasonable.’” Id. 

A defendant who seeks to withdraw a guilty plea after the court has accepted 

the plea but before sentencing bears the burden of demonstrating “a fair and just 

reason” for doing so. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(d)(2)(B); United States v. Izquierdo, 

USCA11 Case: 19-11395 Date Filed: 02/11/2020 Page: 2 of 5
3

448 F.3d 1269, 1276 (11th Cir. 2006). We construe liberally whether a 

defendant’s pre-sentence motion to withdraw is supported by “a fair and just 

reason.” See United States v. Buckles, 843 F.2d 469, 471 (11th Cir. 1988). A 

defendant, however, has “no absolute right to withdraw a guilty plea.” Id. Instead, 

whether a defendant will be allowed to withdraw his plea is a decision “left to the 

sound discretion of the trial court.” Id. 

In determining whether a defendant has satisfied his burden of showing a 

“fair and just reason” for withdrawal, the district court must “consider the totality 

of the circumstances surrounding the plea.” Id. at 471-72. The district court 

considers (1) whether the defendant received close assistance of counsel, (2) 

whether the plea was entered knowingly and voluntarily, (3) whether judicial 

resources would be conserved, and (4) whether allowing a defendant to withdraw 

his plea would prejudice the government. Id. at 472. On appeal, Lutgen 

challenges only the district court’s determination that Lutgen received close 

assistance of counsel.

The district court abused no discretion in denying Lutgen’s motion to 

withdraw his guilty plea. As an initial matter, the district court conducted an 

extensive plea colloquy before accepting Lutgen’s plea. At the plea hearing, 

Lutgen testified that he had discussed with his lawyer the charges against him and 

USCA11 Case: 19-11395 Date Filed: 02/11/2020 Page: 3 of 5
4

the possible sentences, that he had no unanswered questions for his lawyer, and 

that he was fully satisfied with his lawyer’s representation. Lutgen also confirmed 

that he understood the charges against him, that he agreed with the government’s 

factual proffer, and that he was pleading guilty of his own free will because he had 

committed the offense of production of child pornography. 

Lutgen, however, also told the district court that he was “still waiting on 

some things” to review as part of discovery. In response to the district court’s 

follow-up questions, Lutgen said that he already had an opportunity to talk with his 

lawyer about the discovery items and that he had reviewed all the discovery that he 

had requested. Lutgen then said that he “just needed more time to review them 

[more] accurately.” The district court then asked these questions:

THE COURT: All right. Now, do you need more time to review 

them before we proceed today?

THE DEFENDANT: Oh, no. We can continue.

THE COURT: Are you certain, sir?

THE DEFENDANT: Positive.

THE COURT: Well, then let me ask the question again. Are you 

fully satisfied with the counsel, the representation, and the advice 

given to you in this case by your attorney[?]

THE DEFENDANT: Yes.

USCA11 Case: 19-11395 Date Filed: 02/11/2020 Page: 4 of 5
5

We stress that statements made under oath by a defendant during a plea 

colloquy receive a strong presumption of truthfulness. See United States v. 

Medlock, 12 F.3d 185, 187 (11th Cir. 1994). A defendant “bears a heavy burden” 

to show that statements he made under oath were false. United States v. Rogers, 

848 F.2d 166, 168 (11th Cir. 1988). 

Lutgen’s later conclusory assertions that his lawyer failed to advise him 

adequately about all discovery and refused to pursue additional discovery are not 

enough to overcome the earlier contrary statements Lutgen made at the plea 

colloquy. In the pertinent plea colloquy, Lutgen testified under oath that he had 

discussed the discovery with his lawyer, that he had reviewed all the requested 

discovery, that he needed no additional time to review documents before 

proceeding with his plea, that he had no unanswered questions for his lawyer, and 

that he was fully satisfied with his lawyer’s performance. 

On this record, we are unpersuaded that the district court’s decision to deny 

Lutgen’s motion was arbitrary or unreasonable; we see no abuse of discretion.

AFFIRMED.

USCA11 Case: 19-11395 Date Filed: 02/11/2020 Page: 5 of 5