(Tr. at 14-15.) Following a summary of the factual bases for Ramsey’s plea of guilty to Counts 1
and 10, the Court questioned Ramsey as follows.

THE COURT: Mr. Ramsey, you have heard what the government’s evidence would
show if this case were to go to trial. Is that statement true?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Do you disagree with any part of that statement?
THE DEFENDANT: No, sir.
THE COURT: Mr. Ramsey, are you in fact guilty of the offenses charged in Counts
1 and 10 of the indictment?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
THE COURT: Bearing in mind everything we’ve discussed here today, bearing in
mind the rights you have to go to trial, bearing in mind the possible penalties for
commissions of those offenses as set out in Counts 1 and 10, what is your plea to the
offense set out in Count 1, guilty or not guilty?
THE DEFENDANT: Guilty.
THE COURT: What is your plea to the offense set out in Count 10?
THE DEFENDANT: Guilty.
THE COURT: I find that the defendant has acknowledged that he is in fact guilty.
I find there’s a sufficient factual basis to support pleas of guilty as to both counts and
that his acknowledgment as to both counts has been made. I find that he is
knowledgeable regarding his rights to trial, knowledgeable of the maximum
punishments provided under the statute. I find that his plea was freely and
voluntarily given. I find that he has had the effective assistance of counsel.

The plea of guilty is accepted. A finding of guilty is accepted as to both
Counts 1 and 10.

(Tr. at 17-18.)

In a letter addressed to the Court, Ramsey moved to withdraw his guilty plea. Appointed
counsel then filed an Amended Motion to Withdraw Guilty Plea. The Government has filed a
Tesponse.

ANALYSIS

A defendant does not have an absolute right to withdraw a guilty plea. United States v. Pike,

211 F.3d 385, 388 (7th Cir. 2000). Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(d), “[a] defendant

may withdraw a plea of guilty . . . after the court accepts the plea, but before it imposes sentence if:

-4-


see

charges against him and that he was in fact guilty of the offenses charged in Counts | and 10. “[A]
defendant’s bare protestations of innocence — especially after a knowing and voluntary guilty plea
in a thorough Rule 11 colloquy — will not suffice . .. When a defendant makes no more than naked
claims of innocence, a court need not allow the defendant to withdraw his guilty plea... .” United
States v. Hodges, 259 F.3d 655, 661 (7th Cir. 2001). Thus, Ramsey’s claim of innocence also does
not show a fair and just reason to permit withdrawal of his guilty plea.

Finally, Ramsey argues that the Government would not be prejudiced because “counsel for
the defendant is aware of no evidentiary problems that the [G]overnment would have[,] such as
witnesses not being available.” (Am. Mot. Withdraw Guilty Plea 7.) However, because Ramsey
has failed to provide a fair and just reason for withdrawal of a guilty plea, “there is no basis for
considering if a plea withdrawal would prejudice the [G]overnment.” United States v. Alvarez-
Quiroga, 901 F.2d 1433, 1439 (7th Cir. 1990).

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated herein, Maurice Ramsey’s Amended Motion to Withdraw Guilty Plea

is denied. i

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: (peas 8 2003

John W. Darrah, Judge
United States District Court

-7-


guilty to Counts 1 and 10. The Court questioned Ramsey, in pertinent part, as follows.

THE COURT: In addition, by pleading guilty you are abandoning any pretrial
motions or any objections that you may have made or could have made on your
behalf or could have been made on your behalf during the trial of these proceedings.
Do you understand that you’re giving up those rights as well?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes.

THE COURT: Mr. Ramsey, if you plead guilty and I accept your plea of guilty, there
will not be a trial on your case, and I will enter a finding of guilty and sentence you
on the basis of your plea after considering a presentence investigation report, after
hearing from your lawyer, after hearing from the government lawyer and after
hearing from you yourself if you choose to make a statement. Do you understand that
would be the effect of entering a plea of guilty?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes.

THE COURT: Mr. Ramsey, do you have any questions at all regarding the
procedures that we’ve discussed up until this moment?
THE DEFENDANT: No, sir.

(Tr. at 11-12, 13) (emphasis added).
After a discussion of the statutory maximum and minimum sentences, the Court questioned
Ramsey as follows.

THE COURT: Mr. Ramsey, has anyone forced you in any way to plead guilty?
THE DEFENDANT: No, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Has anyone threatened you in any regard to cause you to plead guilty?
THE DEFENDANT: No, sir.

THE COURT: Is it your decision to plead guilty and your decision entirely voluntary
on your part after discussing this matter with Mr. Clark, your attorney?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Have there been any promises made to you by your attorney regarding
sentencing?

THE DEFENDANT: No, Your Honor.

THE COURT: You understand that it must be your decision and your decision alone
to plead guilty regardless of any advice you’ve been given by Mr. Clark? Is that the
case?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes.

THE COURT: And you understand that it will be my decision, this court’s decision,
as to what the final sentence will be?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes.

-3-


... the defendant can show a fair and just reason for requesting the withdrawal.” Fed.R.Crim.P.
11(d)(2)(B). The defendant bears the burden of justifying relief under Rule 11(d). Pike, 211 F.3d
at 388. In determining whether relief under Rule 11(d) is justified, a court will consider the

following factors: “‘(1) whether the defendant asserts his innocence; (2) whether the government
would be prejudiced by withdrawal; and (3) the strength of the defendant’s reasons for moving to
withdraw.’” United States v. Martinez, 785 F.2d 111, 114 (3d Cir. 1986) (quoting United States v.
Trott, 779 F.2d 912, 915 (3d Cir. 1985)).

Ramsey argues that relief under Rule | 1(d) is justified because he is innocent and that he pled
guilty due to his mistaken belief that he would be able to file motions to suppress. Ramsey states
that on June 3, 2002, Clark assured him that, ifhe proceeded to trial, he would lose and advised him
to take a blind plea. Ramsey further states that Clark told Ramsey that Clark would prepare and file
suppression motions and that a hearing on those motions would be scheduled before the sentencing
hearing. In a letter to Clark dated July 9, 2002, Ramsey wrote that “you was [sic] suppose [sic] to
come see me last week to discuss with me about the plea I took, and to prepare me to take the stand
on the suppression hearings. . . . I need to be prepared for my position for the motion hearing. . . .
Don’t forget to file the probable cause motion. ...” (Def.’s Am. Mot. Withdraw Guilty Plea Ex. A.)

Ramsey has failed to show a fair and just reason for requesting the withdrawal of his guilty
plea. At the Rule 11 hearing, the Court engaged in an extensive colloquy with Ramsey to determine
that he was competent to plead guilty and that his guilty plea was knowing and voluntary. During
the Rule 11 hearing, Ramsey stated that: (1) he was satisfied with Clark’s representation and advice;
(2) he understood the nature of the charges against him; (3) he was abandoning any pretrial motions

that were, or could have been, filed; (4) he had not been threatened or forced to plead guilty; (5) his

-5-


‘Minute Order Form (06/97)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assigned Judge jarrah Sitting Judge if Other
or Magistrate Judge John W. D: than Assigned Judge
CASE NUMBER 01 CR 924-1 DATE 5/8/2003
CASE USA vs. MAURICE RAMSEY
TITLE
[In the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, e.g., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature
MOTION: of the motion being presented.)
DOCKET ENTRY:
(1) oO Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]
(2) Oo Brief in support of motion due
(3) Oo Answer brief to motion due, . Reply to answer brief due.
4) Oo Ruling/Hearing on set for at
(5) oO Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on set for at
(6) oO Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on set for at
(7) Oo Trialfset for/re-set for] on at
(8) Oo [Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to at
(9) o This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to}
COFRCP4(m) CiLocal Rule 41.1 CFRCP41(a)(1) OO FRCP41(a)(2).
ao) if [Other docket entry] Status hearing held. Enter Memorandum Opinion And Order. Maurice
Ramsey’s amended motion to withdraw guilty plea is denied. Sentencing is set for June 17, 2003 at 11:00
am,
(1) gf [For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.]
No notices required, advised in open court.
No notices required, umber of voices
Notices mailed by judge’s staff. a aan
Notified counsel b MAY = 9 7077
fi telephone, date docket
| Dovketing to mail notices. | gS
Mail AO 450 form. docketing deputy tials
Copy to judge/magistrate judge.

ate mailed notice

courtroom
deputy’s
initials —
Date/time received in-» | +
central Clerk's Office

mailing depucy initials



attorney had not made any promises to him regarding sentencing; and (6) he was, in fact, guilty of
the offenses set out in Counts 1 and 10. When directly asked whether he had any questions regarding
the procedures that the Court was explaining to him, Ramsey replied in the negative.

Ramsey’s claim that he now believes that he would be able to file motions to suppress after
his entry of a guilty plea is not a fair and just reason for withdrawal of his guilty plea and is contrary
to the record. During the colloquy with Ramsey at the Rule 11 hearing as set out above, the Court
specifically advised Ramsey that by pleading guilty he was giving up the right to file any pretrial
motions. When asked whether he understood that he was giving up those rights, Ramsey stated that
he did. The record that is created at a Rule 11 hearing is accorded a “presumption of verity.” United
States y. Truss, 961 F.2d 685, 689 (7th Cir. 1992). The district court must be able to rely on the
defendant’s sworn testimony at the Rule 11 proceeding. United States v. Gwiadzinski, 141 F.3d 784,
788 (7th Cir. 1998). Ramsey has not submitted any facts that would undermine that presumption
of verity.

While “[b]eing legally innocent of a crime is a fair and just reason to withdraw a guilty plea
... a blanket claim of innocence does not mandate the court to allow a defendant to withdraw his
plea. . .. The claim must be supported by credible evidence.” United States v. Gomez-Orozco, 188
F.3d 422, 425 (7th Cir. 1999) (internal citations omitted). It should be noted that, despite his
averment in his Amended Motion to Withdraw Guilty Plea, Ramsey does not claim that he is
innocent. Rather, Ramsey claims that if he were able to file motions to suppress he would prevail
and would not have to enter a guilty plea. However, even if Ramsey were claiming that he was
innocent, he would have to submit evidence to support his claim of innocence, which he has not

done. Moreover, at his Rule 11 hearing, Ramsey admitted that he understood the nature of the

-6-


IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION
TED STATES OF AMERICA, )
)
Plaintiff, )
) Case No. 01 CR 924

Vv. )

) Honorable John W. Darrah
MAURICE RAMSEY, )
)
Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

On June 3, 2002, Defendant, Maurice Ramsey (“Ramsey”), appeared before this Court and
pled guilty to two counts of uttering and possessing a counterfeited security in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 513(a). Ramsey made a “blind” plea, meaning that there was no written plea agreement. Ramsey
subsequently filed an Amended Motion to Withdraw Guilty Plea. For the reasons that follow,
Ramsey’s Amended Motion to Withdraw Guilty Plea is denied.

BACKGROUND

At the June 3, 2002 plea hearing, after questioning Ramsey and counsel, the Court found that
Ramsey was competent to plead guilty. Both the Assistant United States Attorney prosecuting this
case and Ramsey’s then-counsel, Ronald Clark, stated that they believed that Ramsey wascompetent
to enter a plea of guilty.

In response to the Court’s questions, Ramsey testified, under oath, as follows.

THE COURT: Mr. Ramsey, have you had enough time to discuss this matter with

Mr. Clark, your lawyer?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Are you satisfied with the advice and the efforts of Mr. Clark on your

behalf as your attorney?

-l-


THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Now, there was an issue earlier on in these proceedings when you
corresponded with me. Do you recall that?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes.

THE COURT: And you raised some questions about the representation you were
receiving from Mr. Clark. Do you still have those fears?

THE DEFENDANT: No, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Do you still have those concerns?

THE DEFENDANT: No.

THE COURT: Is there anything about the representation Mr. Clark has afforded you
that you think has been less than adequate?

THE DEFENDANT: No, Your Honor.

THE COURT: You believe that he has served your interests as your lawyer and done
that well?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Are you satisfied with his advice and with the efforts he’s made on
your behalf in this case?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor.

(Tr. at 5-6.)
The Court then asked Ramsey whether he intended to plead guilty to Counts 1 and 10 of the
superseding indictment, and Ramsey stated that he did. Ramsey also stated that his attorney had

explained the nature of the charges set out in Counts 1 and 10, The Court then questioned Ramsey

as follows.

THE COURT: Mr. Ramsey, do you understand the nature of the charges set out in
Count 10?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Do you have any question at all about the nature of the charges in
Count 10?

THE DEFENDANT: No, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Do you have any question at all about the nature of the charges in
Count 1?

THE DEFENDANT: No, Your Honor.

(Tr. at 8.)

The Court then explained to Ramsey that he was waiving his right to a jury trial by pleading