Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-04199/USCOURTS-ca8-04-04199-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jason David Austin
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Richard H. Kyle, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

________________

No. 04-4199

________________

United States of America, 

Appellee,

v.

Jason David Austin,

Appellant.

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Appeal from the United States 

District Court for the 

District of Minnesota.

[PUBLISHED]

________________

Submitted: June 20, 2005

 Filed: June 27, 2005

________________

Before MELLOY, HEANEY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. 

________________

PER CURIAM.

Jason David Austin was indicted and charged with a single count of bank

robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). On May 17, 2004, Austin appeared

before the district court1

 to enter a plea of guilty. The district court inquired into

Austin’s understanding of the plea agreement and of the consequences of pleading

guilty. The district court also made the inquiries of Austin necessary to determine

Appellate Case: 04-4199 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/27/2005 Entry ID: 1920680
-2-

that the change of plea was made knowingly and voluntarily, and without coercion,

threat or promise other than that made in the plea agreement. After complying with

the requirements of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the district

court accepted the guilty plea and set a date for sentencing.

Six weeks later, Austin filed a pro se motion to withdraw his guilty plea,

asserting that his attorney and the Government coerced him into entering a guilty plea

and that he was “nonintelligible to the court’s stipulation to the agreement of the

plea.” The district court denied Austin’s motion, finding that it failed to state any

facts in support of the allegations and that the allegations were contrary to statements

Austin had made under oath during the change of plea hearing. At sentencing, Austin

withdrew his claim of coercion and instead argued that he regretted his decision to

change his plea because it was made hastily. The district court reaffirmed its denial

of the motion to withdraw the guilty plea and sentenced Austin to 210 months’

imprisonment.

Prior to sentencing, a defendant may be allowed to withdraw a guilty plea if he

can show a fair and just reason for requesting the withdrawal. Fed. R. Crim. P.

11(d)(2)(B); see also United States v. Wicker, 80 F.3d 263, 266 (8th Cir. 1996)

(recognizing that though the “fair and just” standard is a liberal one, it does not create

an automatic right to withdraw a plea). Besides “any fair and just reason,” a court

should also consider whether the defendant has asserted his innocence to the charge,

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

the government will be prejudiced by the withdrawal. United States v.

Soriano-Hernandez, 310 F.3d 1099, 1104 n.7 (8th Cir. 2002). If a defendant fails to

establish a fair and just reason for withdrawing a guilty plea, the district court need

not address the remaining factors. Wicker, 80 F.3d at 266. The defendant bears the

burden of proving why withdrawal of his guilty plea should be permitted. United

States v. Morales, 120 F.3d 744, 747 (8th Cir. 1997). We review the district court’s

denial of a motion to withdraw a plea for an abuse of discretion. Id.

Appellate Case: 04-4199 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/27/2005 Entry ID: 1920680
-3-

On appeal, Austin argues only that the decision to change his plea was hastily

made and, as a result, not fully voluntary. See United States v. Morrison, 967 F.2d

264, 268 (8th Cir. 1992) (“The plea of guilty is a solemn act not to be disregarded

because of belated misgivings about [its] wisdom.”) (quoting United States v.

Woosley, 440 F.2d 1280, 1281 (8th Cir. 1971)); see also United States v. Stuttley, 103

F.3d 684, 686 (8th Cir. 1996) (“Post-plea regrets by a defendant caused by

contemplation of the prison term he faces are not a fair and just reason for a district

court to allow a defendant to withdraw a guilty plea, or for this court to reverse the

district court.”). After carefully reviewing the record, we reject Austin’s argument

that his plea was not made voluntarily. The district court inquired fully into Austin’s

state of mind at the time of the change of plea hearing, whether he had adequately

reviewed and considered the plea agreement, and whether he understood the plea

agreement and the consequences of pleading guilty. Because the district court did not

abuse its discretion in denying Austin’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea, we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-4199 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/27/2005 Entry ID: 1920680