Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03912/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03912-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Aaron Schwinn
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable John R. Tunheim, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-3912

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

Aaron Schwinn, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: March 20, 2008

Filed: March 25, 2008

___________

Before BYE, SMITH, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Aaron Schwinn pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute 500 grams to one

kilogram of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(B) and 846, and

conspiring to distribute 150 pounds of marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C.

§§ 841(b)(1)(C) and 846. The district court1

 sentenced him to 40 months in prison

and three years of supervised release. Schwinn appeals, challenging the denial of his

motion to withdraw his guilty plea and the denial of his motion to dismiss the

indictment, and arguing that he was thereby denied due process. We affirm.

Appellate Case: 06-3912 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/25/2008 Entry ID: 3416213
-2-

Following careful review, we conclude the district court did not abuse its

discretion by refusing to allow Schwinn to withdraw his plea. See United States v.

Wicker, 80 F.3d 263, 266 (8th Cir. 1996) (standard of review; court may grant motion

to withdraw guilty plea if defendant files such motion before sentencing and

establishes “fair and just reason” for withdrawing plea). The plea transcript shows

that Schwinn expressed satisfaction with his counsel and did not feel coerced, and that

he understood the nature of the charges against him, the possible penalties, and the

rights he was forfeiting, notwithstanding the findings reported in a psychiatric

evaluation submitted in support of Schwinn’s motion to withdraw. See United States

v. Bahena, 223 F.3d 797, 806-07 (8th Cir. 2000). In addition, Schwinn’s challenges

to the indictment were foreclosed by his guilty plea, see United States v. Vaughan, 13

F.3d 1186, 1187 (8th Cir. 1994), and we find no due process violation.

Finally, to the extent Schwinn wishes to challenge his counsel’s effectiveness,

he must do so in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceeding where the record may be adequately

developed. See United States v. Cain, 134 F.3d 1345, 1352 (8th Cir. 1998).

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-3912 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/25/2008 Entry ID: 3416213