# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 6- 28 39

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Kris to ph er Hat ch

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e So ut he rn Dis tri ct of I owa - Co un ci l Bl uf fs

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: Apri l 4 , 20 17 Fil ed : J un e 8 , 20 17 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __
Befo re COLLOTON, BEAM, and BENTON, Circu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

PER CURI AM.

Kris to ph er Hatc h ap pe al s, ch al le ng in g th e di st ric t co ur t's de ni al of hi s m ot io n 1

to wit hd raw h is gu il ty ple a. W e aff irm.

The Hon or ab le Ja m es E. Grit zn er, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e 1 So ut he rn Dis tri ct of I owa

.In Decem be r 20 15
, a gr an d jury ch arg ed Hatc h, al on g wit h se ve ral ot he rs , wit h

m ul ti pl e dr ug co ns pi racy, po ss es si on , an d fir earm s ch arg es

. P u r su an t to a pl ea
ag reem en t un de r Fed eral Ru le of Cri m in al Pro ced ur e 11 (c)( 1) (C), Hatc h pl ed gu il ty 2

to on e co un t of co ns pi racy to di st rib ut e m et ha m ph et am in e in vi ol at io n of 21 U.S.C. §§ 8 4 1 ( a ) ( 1 )
, (b )(1 )(A), an d 84 6; an d on e co un t of fel on in po ss es si on of a fir earm in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. §§ 92 2( g) (1 ) an d 92 4( a)(2 ). The pl ea ag reem en t pr es cri be d

a se nt en ce o f 15 1 m on th s' i m pr is on m en t.

Fo ll owi ng Hatc h's pl ea, th e pr es en te nc e in ve st ig at io n rep or t (PSR ) cal cu la te d
Hatc h's su gg es te d Gui de li ne s se nt en ce ap pl y in g a care er-o ffen de r en ha nc em en t an d

a n arm ed -car eer- of

fen de r en ha nc em en t un de r th e Arm ed Care er Cri m in al A c t (ACCA), whi ch carr ie d a fif te en -y ear (1 80 -m on th ) m an da to ry m in im um

. Hatc h th en fil ed a m ot io n to wit hd raw hi s pl ea cl ai m in g th at t he pl ea ag reem en t ha d be en "n ul li fie d." The go ve rn m en t di d no t res is t th is mo t i o n, in fo rm in g th e di st ric t co ur t th at at th e ti m e th e pa rti es en te red in to th e pl ea ag reem en t, th ey were "u na ware" th at
Hatc h qu al ifi ed as an a rm ed care er cri m in al pu rs ua nt to 18 U.S.C. § 92 4( e)(1 ), an d
th at th is ch an ge of ev en ts pr oh ib it ed th e co ur t fro m en fo rci ng th e ag reed -u po n 15 1-

m on th se nt en ce in th e pl ea ag reem en t. At th e he ari ng on th e m ot io n, th e di st ric t co ur t de te rm in ed th at th e arm ed -car eer- of fen de r pr ov is io n di d no t ap pl y to Hatc h, an d th us H a t ch 's co un se l so ug ht to wit hd raw hi s pe nd in g m ot io n to wit hd raw th e pl ea. Th e di st ric t co ur t de ni ed th e m ot io n a s m oo t an d he ld th at it wou ld pr oc eed un de r th e

or ig in al pl ea ag reem en t.

In May, Hatc h su bm it te d a pr o se le tt er to th e co ur t, an d ne w l y a p p oi nt ed

co un se l fil ed a se co nd mo t io n to wit hd raw th e pl ea, bo th cl ai m in g in effe ct iv e

as si st an ce of co un se l an d qu es ti on in g th e fai rn e s s of th e pl ea ag reem en t. The

A Ru le 11 (c)( 1 ) ( C ) pl ea ag reem en t bi nd s no t on ly th e go ve rn m en t an d th e 2 de fen da nt , bu t al so th e co ur t if th e co ur t acce pt s th e ag r e e men t

. Uni te d St at es v. Scu rla rk , 56 0 F .3d 83 9, 8 41 -4 2 (8 th Cir . 20 09 ).

-2

-go ve rn m en t res is te d th e m ot io n. The di st ric t co ur t de ni ed th e m o t i o n , ho ld in g th at

Hatc h di d no t est ab li sh th at hi s pr ev io us co un se l's as si st an ce was in effe ct iv e or th at he was pr ejud ic ed
, an d th at he fai le d to es ta bl is h a fai r an d jus t reas on fo r wit hd rawal
of hi s pl ea. The co ur t ad di ti on al ly he ld th at gi ve n th e re c o r d a n d H a tc h's cri m in al
hi st or y , th e se nt en ce st ip ul at ed to in th e ag reem en t (1 51 m on th s) was si gn ifi can tl y lo wer th a n w h a t w o ul d li ke ly res ul t un de r th e Gui de li ne s, m ak in g it ev en m or e di ffi cu lt to di sc ern an y

in effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l.

At se nt en ci ng , Hatc h ag ai n ren ewed hi s req ue st to wit hd raw th e pl ea an d
ad di ti on al ly te st ifi ed ab ou t h i s co nc ern s wit h hi s co un se l's effe ct iv en es s, cert ai n al le ge d e rro rs of f

act in th e PSR, h is be li ef t ha t t he re was in su ffi ci en t p ro of of d ru g

am ou nt s at tri bu te d to hi m in th is m at te r, an d hi s own di ffer in g cal cu la ti on s reg ard in g th e su gg es te d Gui de li ne s se nt en ce. The di st ric t co ur t se nt en ced Hatc h to 15 1 m on th s'
im pr is on m en t pu rs ua nt to th e joi nt reco m m en da ti on o f th e pa rti es co nt ai ne d in th e Ru le 11 (c)( 1) (C) pl ea ag reem en t. Hatc h ap pe al s, arg ui ng he ha d fai r an d jus t reas on s fo r wit hd rawi ng hi s p le a an d t he di st ric t co ur t s ho ul d h av e al lo wed hi m to do so

.

A de fen da nt m ay wit hd raw a pl ea of gu il ty be fo re th e co ur t im po se s se nt en ce if th e de fen da nt can sh ow a "fa ir an d jus t reas on fo r req ue st in g th e wit hd rawal ." Fed

. R. Cri m

. P. 11 (d )(2 )(B)

. "Whi le th e s t a n d a rd is li be ral
, th e de fen da nt ha s no

au to m at ic rig ht to wit hd raw a pl ea." Uni te d St at es v. Van Dor en , 80 0 F.3 d 99 8, 10 01 (8 th C i r

. 20 15 ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Heid , 6 51 F.3 d 85 0, 85 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 )).
The bu rd en is o n th e de fen da nt to es ta bl is h th e fai r an d jus t gr ou nd s fo r th e wit hd rawal of a gu il ty ple a. Uni te d S ta te s v. Hau br ic h, 74 4 F.3d 55 4, 55 7 (8t h Cir.
20 1 4 )

. Th i s co ur t rev ie ws th e de ni al of a de fen da nt 's m ot io n to wit hd raw a gu il ty pl ea fo r an ab us e of di sc ret io n. Uni te d St at es v. Bri gg s, 82 0 F.3 d 91 7, 92 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 16 ), cert . den ie d, 1 37 S. Ct. 6 17 (20 17 ).

Hatc h c la im s h is co un se l was in effe ct iv e. "Th is can be a fai r an d ju st reas on fo r wit hd rawal if th e de fen da nt can de m on st rat e bo th th at co un se l's pe rfo rm an ce was

-3

-de fic ie nt an d th at th e de fic ie nc y pr ejud ic ed th e de fen da nt ." Hau b r i ch
, 74 4 F.3 d at

55 7. Dur in g Hatc h's in it ia l ch an ge -o f-p le a he ari ng th e m ag is tra te jud ge qu es ti on ed 3

Hatc h ex te ns iv el y ab ou t hi s kn owl ed ge of th e pe nd in g ch arg es , th e ev id en c e th at

wou ld li ke ly be pr es en te d sh ou ld th e m at te r pr oc eed to tri al
, Hatc h's pl ea ag reem en t,

an d Hatc h's de ci si on to pl ead gu il ty. Dur in g th at co ll oq uy Hatc h ack no wled ge d th at he was "fu ll y sa ti sf

ie d" wit h hi s co un se l's pe rfo rm an ce du rin g th e ne go ti at io n of th e pl ea an d du rin g th e ch an ge -o f-p le a he ari n g

. " A de fen da nt 's 'fai lu re to as se rt an y ob jecti on s to co un se l's pe rfo rm an ce at his ch an ge -o f-p le a he ari ng refu te s any cl ai m of in effe ct iv e as si st an ce of co un se l as a ba si s fo r wit hd rawi ng hi s pl ea.'" Id

. (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Hug he s, 16 F.3 d 94 9, 95 1 (8 th Ci r. 19 94 )). Hatc h's te st im on y at th e ch an ge -o f-p le a he ari ng refu te s hi s cu rren t cl ai m th at hi s fir st at to rn ey li ed to hi m an d

m is le d hi m du rin g pl ea ne go ti at io ns

. The di st r i c t c o ur t di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n in fin di ng th at Hatc h fai le d to es ta bl is h th at hi s co un se l's pe rfo rm an ce was de fic ie nt

an d t ha t t he de fic ie nc y

pre jud ic ed hi m

.

Als o o n a pp eal , Hatch ag ai n c ha ll en ge s t he fai lu re o f co un se l t o rai se cert ai n "v ia bl e" de fen se s , t h e d r u g qu an ti ty at tri bu te d to hi m , an d th e al le ge d la ck of

ev id en ce of hi s own ers hi p of th e ho m e w h e r e th e weap on at tri bu te d to hi m was fo un d. Th es e arg um en ts fai l. Firs t, Hatch ad m it te d un de r oa th th e fact ua l b as is for
th e ch arg es , affi rm ed h i s f u l l s at is fact io n wit h hi s at to rn ey , an d rei te rat ed hi s wil li ng ne ss to en te r in to th e pl ea ag reem en t. Seco nd
, aft er th e ch an g e

- o f

- pl ea he ari ng , th e di st ric t co ur t th or ou gh ly ad dr es se d th es e arg um en ts whe n it ad dr es se d
Hatc h's se co nd m ot io n to wit hd raw hi s pl ea, an d ag ai n whe n it di sc us se d th em at

se nt en ci ng , no ti ng th at ev en if it w e r e t o c r e d i t so m e of th e is su es rai se d by Hatc h
fo ll owi ng th e ch an ge -o f-p le a he ari ng , th e Gui de li ne s ran ge wou ld st i l l be a ran ge si gn ifi can tl y hi gh er th an th e 15 1 m on th s ag reed to in th e pl ea. Hatc h al so ren ews hi s cl ai m th at th e go ve rn m en t act ed in ba d fai th an d tri ed to nu ll ify the pl ea ag reem en t

The Hon or ab le Hele n C. Ada m s, Uni te d St at es Mag is tra te Ju dg e fo r th e 3 So ut he rn Dis tri ct of I owa

.
-4

-aft er th e PSR in cl u d e d th e arm ed -car eer- of fen de r en ha nc em en t un de r th e ACCA.
The di st ric t co ur t ap pr op ria te ly di sp os ed of th at cl ai m whe n it no te d th at th e pa rti es

en te red in to th e Ru le 11 (c)( 1) (C) agre em en t be fo re th e go ve rn m en t rais ed th e is su e of th e ACCA's po te nt ia l app li cab il it y an d th us th is is su e ha d no be ari ng on th e pl ea
ag reem en t wha ts oe ve r. Care fu ll y rev ie win g th e en ti ret y of th e reco rd
, we fin d no ab us e of di sc ret io n in th e di st ric t co ur t's de te rm in at io n th at Hatc h fai le d to es ta bl is h
fai r an d ju st gro un ds for th e wit hd rawal of h is gu il ty ple a.

Fo r th es e rea so ns , we affi rm

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-5

-