Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-04156/USCOURTS-ca4-15-04156-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Tony Curtis Bowen
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-4156

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

TONY CURTIS BOWEN,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr., 

Senior District Judge. (1:14-cr-00020-JAB-1)

Submitted: September 9, 2015 Decided: September 11, 2015

Before SHEDD, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Sharon Leigh Smith, UNTI & SMITH, Raleigh, North Carolina, for 

Appellant. Sandra Jane Hairston, Assistant United States 

Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-4156 Doc: 32 Filed: 09/11/2015 Pg: 1 of 4
2

PER CURIAM:

Tony Curtis Bowen pled guilty to distributing cocaine base 

and possessing a firearm by a convicted felon. He received a 

51-month sentence. Counsel has filed an Anders v. California, 

386 U.S. 738 (1967) brief, certifying that there are no 

meritorious issues, but questioning whether the district court 

abused its discretion in denying Bowen’s motion to withdraw his 

guilty plea. Finding no error, we affirm.

“A defendant has no absolute right to withdraw a guilty 

plea.” United States v. Bowman, 348 F.3d 408, 413 (4th Cir. 

2003) (internal quotation marks omitted). Rather, once the 

district court has accepted a guilty plea, it is within the 

court’s discretion whether to grant a motion to withdraw it 

based on the defendant’s showing of a “fair and just reason.” 

Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(d)(2)(B); United States v. Battle, 499 F.3d 

315, 319 (4th Cir. 2007). When considering whether to allow a 

defendant to withdraw a guilty plea, the trial court must 

consider six factors:

(1) whether the defendant has offered credible 

evidence that his plea was not knowing or not 

voluntary, (2) whether the defendant has credibly 

asserted his legal innocence, (3) whether there has 

been a delay between the entering of the plea and the 

filing of the motion, (4) whether defendant has had 

close assistance of competent counsel, (5) whether 

withdrawal will cause prejudice to the government, and 

(6) whether it will inconvenience the court and waste 

judicial resources.

Appeal: 15-4156 Doc: 32 Filed: 09/11/2015 Pg: 2 of 4
3

United States v. Moore, 931 F.2d 245, 248 (4th Cir. 1991)

(citations omitted). Although all of the Moore factors should 

be considered, the first, second, and fourth are the most 

important factors in making the determination of whether to 

allow withdrawal of the plea. United States v. Sparks, 67 F.3d 

1145, 1154 (4th Cir. 1995).

We have reviewed the record on appeal and the parties’ 

arguments, and we conclude that the district court did not err 

in determining that Bowen’s plea was knowingly and voluntarily 

entered, that he had close assistance of competent counsel, and 

that he failed to make a credible showing of legal innocence. 

We conclude that the district court properly weighed the Moore

factors and did not abuse its discretion in denying Bowen’s 

motion to withdraw his guilty plea. See United States v. 

Ubakanma, 215 F.3d 421, 424 (4th Cir. 2000) (reviewing Moore

factors and applying abuse of discretion standard). 

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s denial of the motion 

to withdraw the plea.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed Bowen’s pro se 

claims and the entire record in this case and have found no 

meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Bowen’s 

conviction and sentence. This court requires that counsel 

inform Bowen, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme 

Court of the United States for further review. If Bowen

Appeal: 15-4156 Doc: 32 Filed: 09/11/2015 Pg: 3 of 4
4

requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that 

such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in 

this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s 

motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Bowen.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

Appeal: 15-4156 Doc: 32 Filed: 09/11/2015 Pg: 4 of 4