Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-88-02294/USCOURTS-ca10-88-02294-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ron Kerry Moore
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

FI LED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Cirrnit 

APR 12 1990 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 88-2294 

v. 

RON KERRY MOORE, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

(D.C. No. 88-30003-01) 

(D. Kansas) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before MOORE and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges, and BABCOCK, District 

Judge.** 

As part of a plea agreement, defendant Ron Kerry Moore 

pleaded guilty to one count of assault with a deadly weapon in 

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 113(c). Mr. Moore was sentenced to five 

years imprisonment. On the day of sentencing, defendant moved to 

withdraw his plea of guilty on the grounds that it was improperly 

*This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

**Honorable Lewis T. Babcock, United States District Judge for the 

District of Colorado, sitting by designation. 

Appellate Case: 88-2294 Document: 01019971239 Date Filed: 04/12/1990 Page: 1 
taken; hence, it was not voluntary. The trial court denied the 

motion, and Mr. Moore appeals. We affirm. 

As part of the plea agreement, the government promised it 

would recommend the court impose a sentence in the low end of the 

guidelines. That agreement notwithstanding, the trial court 

advised defendant that the offense carried a maximum of five years 

imprisonment. Defendant Moore also signed a petition to enter a 

plea of guilty in which he acknowledged that maximum penalty. 

Before accepting the plea, the trial court advised Mr. Moore 

that the plea agreement was not binding upon the court, and Mr. 

Moore stated he understood. The court then pointed out the 

sentence would be mandated by the sentencing guidelines, but the 

court was unable to state exactly what the sentence might be 

"until your attorney and the probation office and the government 

have studied the guidelines." The court also advised Mr. Moore 

"this sentence might call for a term of supervised release," but 

that eventuality and the length of the term were also unclear. 

Upon inquiry by the court, Mr. Moore's counsel stated he and the 

defendant conferred 

at some length about the problems with the new 

guidelines as far as determining exactly what kind of 

sentence would be determined for him. He does 

understand we are under a new system, and that I have 

not been able to tell him exactly myself what I believe 

that sentence would be. But we do know the maximum, the 

worst that could happen would be five years. 

Again, the defendant stated to the court he understood these 

circumstances. 

Finally, the court advised Mr. Moore that if it did not 

accept the government's recommendation and imposed a greater 

-2-

Appellate Case: 88-2294 Document: 01019971239 Date Filed: 04/12/1990 Page: 2 
sentence, Mr. Moore could not withdraw his plea. Mr. Moore stated 

he understood. 

When pressed by the court, Mr. Moore acknowledged he had 

committed the offense charged and that the government could prove 

all the elements of the offense. He stated his plea was voluntary 

and was entered because he was in fact guilty of the offense 

charged. 1 

After a lengthy colloquy which covered the full panoply of 

advisement required under Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 and the defendant's 

acknowledgment of his understanding of his rights, the court 

accepted the plea of guilty. The case then arose almost three 

months later for sentencing. 

At the outset of the sentencing hearing, defendant's counsel 

objected to "proceeding to sentence because he [the defendant] 

feels that his plea agreement with the government has not been 

fulfilled in this case, and it goes directly against to [sic] the 

guidelines." Counsel continued: 

Basically the plea agreement was that in exchange 

for my client's plea to one count of the two counts that 

the government would recommend the lower end of the 

guidelines, whatever that may be. And it turns out that 

the guidelines in this particular case are above what 

the court can actually impose. In other words, the 

court is limited to the 60 months; the guidelines now 

say 77 to 96 months. 

Because the government in essence is precluded from 

recommending any lower end of guidelines as it turns out 

under the computations, my client feels that he is not 

getting a fair shake, and the plea agreement has not 

been fulfilled and, therefore, wants to withdraw his 

plea and proceed to trial. 

1Mr. Moore stated: "He [the victim] was assaulted. I assaulted 

him. No way I am withdrawing from that .... The assault 

occurred, it took place." 

-3-

Appellate Case: 88-2294 Document: 01019971239 Date Filed: 04/12/1990 Page: 3 
Immediately, the court inquired "how the plea agreement has been 

broken ... or what the government has done to not carry it out." 

The court pointed out that the government could recommend the 

lower end of the guideline range, but, "since the statutory 

maximum is less that the lower end of the guidelines," the 

recommendation would be of no consequence. 2 

In short, the defendant contended, even though he was advised 

that the trial court could disregard the plea agreement and impose 

a sentence of sixty months, he expected he would actually receive 

a lower sentence. Because the actual sentence did not live up to 

his expectations, Mr. Moore wanted to withdraw his plea. The 

court refused to permit him to do so because the court found the 

defendant had been amply informed of the consequences of that 

plea. 

We agree with the ruling. A defendant is not entitled to 

withdraw his guilty plea just because his aspirations lead him to 

believe he will receive a sentence different than that actually 

imposed. Mr. Moore chose to disregard the court's admonition that 

it could impose a sentence of five years, clinging instead to the 

belief he would receive a different term. That expectation, 

however, was not a product of Mr. Moore's having been misled. 

The record clearly indicates defendant was fully and fairly 

advised of the prospect he could receive a sentence of five years 

2Government's counsel pointed out the plea agreement also provided 

for dismissal of count II. Were that count not dismissed and 

defendant went to trial, he would be subject to the full guideline 

sentence. Hence, the government argued, the defendant still 

received a benefit under the plea agreement. 

-4-

Appellate Case: 88-2294 Document: 01019971239 Date Filed: 04/12/1990 Page: 4 
. ' . 

coupled with supervised release. He manifested his understanding 

of that possibility but chose to persist in his guilty plea. The 

fact that he harbored hopes of more lenient treatment does not 

negate the voluntary and unconditional nature of that plea. See 

United States v. Turner, 881 F.2d 684 (9th Cir. 1989). 

Defendant contends the Rule 11 hearing was inadequate because 

the complexities of guideline sentencing were unclear to everyone, 

including the trial court, at the time defendant entered his plea. 

We are not persuaded because the trial court fully advised Mr. 

Moore of the maximum consequences the guilty plea could invoke. 

The court's inability to state with assurance defendant's 

expectations would not come true does not change the fact that 

defendant knew and understood the full effect of his plea. 

Defendant's argument that the government did not abide by the 

plea agreement is equally unpersuasive. As the sentencing judge 

noted, the government did not breach its agreement. We agree. 

AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court 

John P. Moore 

Circuit Judge 

-5-

Appellate Case: 88-2294 Document: 01019971239 Date Filed: 04/12/1990 Page: 5