Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-09-03946/USCOURTS-ca8-09-03946-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Stanley Walker Harris
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970). 

2

The Honorable Joseph F. Bataillon, Chief Judge, United States District Court

for the District of Nebraska. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-3946

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Nebraska.

Stanley Walker Harris, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: May 10, 2010

Filed: June 21, 2010

___________

Before WOLLMAN, SMITH, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Stanley Walker Harris entered an Alford1

 plea to one count of Social Security

fraud as part of a plea agreement that included a waiver of the right to withdraw the

plea. At the sentencing hearing, the district court2

 denied Harris’s motion to withdraw

his plea. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C), the district

court imposed the parties’ agreed-upon sentence of one year and one day. The district

Appellate Case: 09-3946 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/21/2010 Entry ID: 3676041
-2-

court also imposed three years of supervised release and ordered Harris to pay

$37,783.99 in restitution. Harris appeals, arguing that the district court erred in not

allowing him to withdraw his plea. He claims (1) that his waiver was not knowing or

voluntary, and (2) that the possibility of restitution highlighted in the presentence

investigation report was a fair and just reason to withdraw the plea. We affirm. 

If made knowingly and voluntarily, a defendant’s waiver of his right to

withdraw his plea will be enforced. See United States v. Stricklin, 342 F.3d 849, 850

(8th Cir. 2003) (per curiam); cf. United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-90 (8th

Cir. 2003) (waiver of appellate rights). Whether Harris knowingly and voluntarily

waived his right to withdraw his plea is a legal question that we review de novo. See

United States v. Quiroga, 554 F.3d 1150, 1155 (8th Cir. 2009); United States v.

Swick, 262 F.3d 684, 686 (8th Cir. 2001). 

Paragraph eleven of the plea agreement reads: “By signing this agreement, the

Defendant waives the right to withdraw the Defendant’s plea of guilty pursuant to

Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(d).” The district court conducted a plea

colloquy in which Harris acknowledged that he had read the plea agreement, reviewed

it with his attorney, signed it, entered into it of his own free will, and understood the

terms and conditions of the agreement. Harris actively participated during the plea

colloquy, asking questions and voicing concerns about his attorney’s performance.

The district court informed Harris that “[a]fter I accept your guilty plea, there is no

going back.” After raising several additional concerns, Harris entered his plea. 

We conclude that Harris knowingly and voluntarily entered into the plea

agreement and waived his right to withdraw the plea. Accordingly, we need not

consider Harris’s contention that the possibility of restitution constituted a fair and

just reason to withdraw his plea, because such a claim is dependent upon the absence

of a valid waiver. Furthermore, the record belies Harris’s claim that he was unaware

of the possibility that he might be ordered to make restitution. In his petition to enter

Appellate Case: 09-3946 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/21/2010 Entry ID: 3676041
-3-

a plea of guilty, Harris responded affirmatively to the question, “Do you realize that,

if you plead GUILTY, the judge may require you to make restitution to any victim of

the offense?” 

The judgment is affirmed.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 09-3946 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/21/2010 Entry ID: 3676041