Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01919/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01919-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Derrick John Hushman
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Joan N. Ericksen, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-1919

___________

United States of America, *

*

Plaintiff - Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * District of Minnesota.

*

Derrick John Hushman, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Defendant - Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: September 15, 2005

Filed: November 17, 2005

___________

Before MURPHY, BRIGHT, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Derrick John Hushman appeals the district court’s judgment1

 of March 16,

2005 sentencing him to 102 months’ imprisonment for conspiracy to distribute and

possession with the intent to distribute in excess of fifty grams of cocaine base.

Hushman appeals his conviction and sentence contending the district court abused its

discretion by not allowing him to withdraw his plea of guilty, that he should have

received a downward departure as a matter of discretion because of his minimal or

Appellate Case: 05-1919 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/17/2005 Entry ID: 1975763
-2-

minor participation in the conspiracy, and that the district court abused its discretion

by imposing a sentence that did not reflect the need to “avoid unwarranted sentence

disparities among defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of

similar conduct.” We affirm. 

Hushman argues that he presented a “fair and just” reason to withdraw his

guilty plea under Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(d)(2)(B): “A defendant may withdraw a plea of

guilty . . . (2) after the court accepts the plea, but before it imposes sentence if: . . . (B)

the defendant can show a fair and just reason for requesting the withdrawal.”

Hushman paid the attorney fees for his girlfriend Tammy Sherrell Cardriche, a coconspirator in this case; her attorney then referred him to a friend who he retained as

his counsel; Cardriche then assisted the government in prosecuting him. After

obtaining new counsel, Hushman argued that the referral from Cardriche’s counsel

created a conflict of interest for his first counsel and the district court should allow

him to withdraw his guilty plea. 

At the Rule 11 hearing, Hushman gave an unqualified waiver of his right to

withdraw his guilty plea under Rule 11(d), agreeing that “if you plead guilty today,

you cannot withdraw your guilty plea . . . . You may be able to appeal the sentence

under some circumstances, but at the end of today’s hearing, if I accept the plea, then

you can’t withdraw your plea.” See United States v. Stricklin, 342 F.3d 849, 850 (8th

Cir. 2003) (affirming conviction based on waiver of Rule 11 right to withdraw guilty

plea). 

Even if Hushman had not waived his right to withdraw his guilty plea, he did

not meet his burden of establishing a fair and just reason to withdraw. See United

States v. Embrey, 250 F.3d 1181, 1183 (8th Cir. 2001) (“A defendant bears the

burden of establishing” a “fair and just reason.”). Hushman’s first counsel had no

apparent conflict of interest and Hushman has provided no basis to claim a conflict

existed. 

Appellate Case: 05-1919 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/17/2005 Entry ID: 1975763
-3-

The district court correctly decided that Hushman agreed in paragraph eight of

his plea agreement that he did not qualify for a downward departure as a minimal or

minor participant in the conspiracy. Further, Hushman admitted at his Rule 11

hearing that he sold the crack cocaine with Cardriche. 

In paragraph eighteen of his plea agreement, Hushman waived his right to

appeal his sentence unless sentenced “above level 29,” which did not occur, and with

the understanding that the district court would sentence him “in conformity with the

United States Sentencing Guidelines.” Thus, Hushman waived his right to appeal any

discretionary sentencing decisions, including whether sentencing him to 102 months’

imprisonment while sentencing Cardriche to 78 months’ imprisonment created an

unwarranted sentencing disparity. The government explained that the disparity

results from Cardriche providing assistance to the government in prosecuting

Hushman. 

Finally, at his Rule 11 hearing, the district court assured that Hushman

understood the plea agreement and the rights he was giving up and did so voluntarily.

Hushman understood he could not withdraw his plea. He understood the mandatory

minimum and maximum terms of imprisonment. He understood the guidelines. He

had no questions about the plea agreement. He was satisfied with his first attorney’s

services. He understood his constitutional rights. And the district court assured itself

of Hushman’s ability to understand the proceedings and agreements and that he was

not coerced. 

 

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-1919 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/17/2005 Entry ID: 1975763