Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-04202/USCOURTS-ca8-06-04202-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
James Edward Storholm
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable James M. Rosenbaum, Chief Judge, United States District

Court for the District of Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-4202

___________

United States of America, *

*

Plaintiff - Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

James Edward Storholm, *

* [UNPUBLISHED] 

Defendant - Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: June 12, 2007

Filed: June 20, 2007

___________

Before BYE, RILEY, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

On February 2, 2006, James Edward Storholm pleaded guilty to one count of

possession of child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B) and

(b)(2). On November 20, 2006, the day he was scheduled to be sentenced, Mr.

Storholm moved to withdraw his guilty plea. He appeals the district court’s1

 denial

of this motion. We affirm.

Appellate Case: 06-4202 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/20/2007 Entry ID: 3321152
2

Storholm was, in addition to the child pornography possession charge, initially

charged with one count of production of child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§ 2251(a) and (e), which carries a mandatory 25-year sentence.

-2-

A district court’s denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea is reviewed for

an abuse of discretion. United States v. Ramirez-Hernandez, 449 F.3d 824, 826 (8th

Cir. 2006). Although a district court may allow a defendant to withdraw his guilty

plea if he shows a “fair and just reason,” Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(d)(2)(B), a guilty plea

should not “be set aside lightly,” United States v. Prior, 107 F.3d 654, 657 (8th Cir.

1997). “Even if such a fair and just reason exists, before granting the motion a court

must consider ‘whether the defendant asserts his innocence of the charge, the length

of time between the guilty plea and the motion to withdraw it, and whether the

government will be prejudiced if the court grants the motion.’” Ramirez-Hernandez,

449 F.3d at 826 (quoting United States v. Nichols, 986 F.2d 1199, 1201 (8th Cir.

1993)). “Where the court sees no fair and just reason to permit withdrawal, however,

these additional matters need not be considered.” Id.

Storholm contends the district court should have allowed him to withdraw his

guilty plea because he is innocent and pleaded guilty only because he feared a lengthy

mandatory minimum sentence for a child pornography production count2

 which the

government dropped in exchange for his guilty plea. He specifically did not allege

his plea was “ill advised, coerced or unknowing,” but rather claimed he had “decided

that pleading guilty was the wrong thing to do” because he is innocent.

We have held “[a]n assertion of innocence—even a ‘swift change of heart after

the plea’—does not constitute a ‘fair and just reason’ to grant withdrawal.” United

States v. Morrison, 967 F.2d 264, 268 (8th Cir. 1992) (quoting United States v.

Devins, 646 F.2d 336, 337 (8th Cir. 1981)). Such claims of innocence carry little

weight in the face of contrary testimony under oath at a change of plea hearing. United

States v. Peebles, 80 F.3d 278, 279 (8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam) (“Furthermore, we

agree with the District Court that Peebles’s claims of innocence are unavailing, given

Appellate Case: 06-4202 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/20/2007 Entry ID: 3321152
-3-

his admissions to the contrary in the plea agreement and stipulation, and at the

change-of-plea hearing.”). Storholm testified at his change of plea hearing that he was

guilty of possession of child pornography. He admitted: “I had in my possession,

Your Honor, um, pornography that depicted younger girls, probably down to the age

of 10, 12.” He specifically admitted possessing five or six such pictures in May 2005.

He confirmed he understood the consequences of his plea. He told the court he signed

the plea agreement of his own free will and that he was pleading guilty because he

was, in fact, guilty of the offense. Then, at his sentencing hearing, Storholm again

admitted he possessed the photographs. In the face of these unequivocal statements

of guilt, we cannot find the district court abused its discretion in denying the motion

to withdraw. Finally, that nine months passed before Storholm moved to withdraw

his plea further supports the district court’s denial of his motion to withdraw. See

United States v. Vallery, 108 F.3d 155, 158 (8th Cir. 1997) (holding the fact that over

four months passed between the defendant’s guilty plea and his motion to withdraw

his guilty plea supported the district court’s decision to deny the motion). As such,

we hold the district court did not abuse its discretion.

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district court.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-4202 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/20/2007 Entry ID: 3321152