Opinion ID: 206571
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: analysis

Text: Goddard first argues that the district court should have permitted him to withdraw his guilty plea. A defendant may withdraw a plea of guilty before sentencing if the defendant can show a fair and just reason for requesting the withdrawal. Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(d)(2)(B). We review a district court's denial of a defendant's motion to withdraw a plea for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Bazzi, 94 F.3d 1025, 1027 (6th Cir.1996). A district court abuses its discretion when it relies on clearly erroneous findings of fact, improperly applies the law or uses an erroneous legal standard. United States v. Ellis, 470 F.3d 275, 280 (6th Cir.2006). The rule regarding the withdrawal of guilty pleas is designed to allow a hastily entered plea made with unsure heart and confused mind to be undone, not to allow a defendant to make a tactical decision to enter a plea, wait several weeks, and then obtain a withdrawal if he believes that he made a bad choice in pleading guilty. United States v. Alexander, 948 F.2d 1002, 1004 (6th Cir.1991) (quotation and citation omitted). [I]t is well settled that the movant has the burden of establishing that his presentence motion to withdraw his plea should be granted. United States v. Triplett, 828 F.2d 1195, 1197 (6th Cir.1987). In United States v. Bashara, 27 F.3d 1174, 1181 (6th Cir.1994), superseded on other grounds by statute as recognized in United States v. Caseslorente, 220 F.3d 727, 734 (6th Cir.2000), we set forth the considerations that should be given to determine whether the defendant has set forth a fair and just reason for the withdrawal of the plea: (1) the amount of time that elapsed between the plea and the motion to withdraw it; (2) the presence (or absence) of a valid reason for the failure to move for withdrawal earlier in the proceedings; (3) whether the defendant has asserted or maintained his innocence; (4) the circumstances underlying the entry of the guilty plea; (5) the defendant's nature and background; (6) the degree to which the defendant has had prior experience with the criminal justice system; and (7) potential prejudice to the government if the motion to withdraw is granted. These factors represent a general, non-exclusive list and no one factor is controlling. Bazzi, 94 F.3d at 1027. The district court acted within its discretion in concluding that the application of these factors did not entitle Goddard to withdraw his guilty plea. In considering these factors, the only ones that unquestionably favor Goddard are the first two: the amount of time elapsed before seeking to withdraw the guilty plea and the reason for any delay. Goddard argues on appeal that the innocence factor has little weight here, and suggests that [t]o the extent this Court has generally given weight to this factor, contrary to the Supreme Court's [precedent in Kercheval v. United States, 274 U.S. 220, 224, 47 S.Ct. 582, 71 L.Ed. 1009 (1927)], this Court should disavow that practice. We disagree. Goddard signed a plea agreement listing the facts constituting the crime to which he pleaded guilty. He was asked about the crime's factual predicate under oath in court prior to the district court accepting his guilty plea. He agreed to the conduct he was charged with, except that he claimed not to remember the presence of any digital scales for weighing cocaine for sale. Indeed, even in his motion to withdraw his plea and at the hearing on his motion to withdraw his plea, Goddard did not claim to be innocent. As Goddard himself stated: Withdrawing my plea doesn't necessarily mean that I am innocent. But it says that I want to enjoy my right to trial. I believe there are enough discrepancies in the state case that I have a good chance, and I am willing to take that chance. I am not saying that I am completely innocent. But a lot of stuff in that case that is said I have to agree to to get to this plea bargain, but they are not true. Quite plainly, the Bashara prong regarding an assertion of innocence does not enure to Goddard's benefit. See United States v. Baez, 87 F.3d 805, 809 (6th Cir. 1996) (Some courts have held that the absence of a defendant's vigorous and repeated protestations of innocence support the denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea.). Relatedly, the circumstances surrounding Goddard's plea are unremarkable. On appeal, Goddard argues that this factor weighs in his favor for four reasons: (1) Goddard's counsel did not believe that Goddard would be immediately placed into custody; (2) the district court relied on an unproven rumor that Goddard was selling drugs while on bond; (3) the district court failed to comply with Rule 11(b)(F), requiring the district court, after advising the defendant of his trial rights, to advise the defendant that a guilty plea expressly waives those rights; and (4) Goddard was effectively denied counsel at the hearing on his motion to withdraw. The first and fourth arguments facially fail. In his motion to withdraw his plea, Goddard admitted that he was made aware shortly before he entered his plea that it was possible that he would be incarcerated immediately. Further, whether Goddard was effectively denied counsel at the hearing on his motion to withdraw subsequent to his rearraignment is irrelevant to the circumstances of his plea. While the district court did comment on a rumor that Goddard had sold drugs while on bond, at the rearraignment proceeding, without prompting, Goddard's counsel had acknowledged having heard about this activity. Finally, the district court specifically addressed Goddard's trial rights and though it did not specifically note that Goddard would waive them by pleading guilty, the colloquy sufficiently satisfied Rule 11(b)(F). Goddard's nature and background support the district court's denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. He was well-educated, [2] suggesting that he understood the consequences of his actions. See United States v. Quinlan, 473 F.3d 273, 278 (6th Cir.2007) (noting that a defendant can understand the consequences of a plea agreement when possessing a sufficiently robust educational background); Ellis, 470 F.3d at 285 (same). Though we have previously noted that health problems can lead to this factor being counted in a defendant's favor, see United States v. Dixon, 479 F.3d 431, 437 (6th Cir.2007), we are unpersuaded that Goddard's health problems presented a fair and just reason for the district court to permit him to withdraw his plea. The sixth factor the Court considers to determine whether Defendant's motion to withdraw the guilty plea is for a fair and just reason is the degree to which Defendant has had prior experience with the criminal justice system. Ellis, 470 F.3d at 285. Goddard had two prior drug felony trafficking convictions along with at least two felony drug convictions. Thus, Goddard had sufficient contact with the criminal justice system to fully understand his rights and the process. Finally, the government is not required to establish prejudice that would result from a plea withdrawal, unless and until the defendant advances and establishes a fair and just reason for allowing the withdrawal. United States v. Spencer, 836 F.2d 236, 240 (6th Cir.1987). At the time Goddard moved to withdraw his plea, the government would not have been prejudiced. However, because Goddard had not established a fair and just reason for the district court to allow the withdrawal, this factor was immaterial to the district court's decision. Consequently, because the district court's analysis of Goddard's motion to withdraw his guilty plea was properly conducted pursuant to Bashara, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion.
Goddard's second argument is that he was denied his right to counsel at the plea-withdrawal hearing. He claims that: The court was well aware that Goddard alleged that [his] counsel was ineffective for misinforming him that he would not be taken into custody [following his guilty plea]. . . . Instead of assessing whether a conflict indeed existed, however, the court proceeded to conduct the plea-withdrawal hearing. This forced Goddard to act as his own attorney, contrary to his request for appointed counsel. Then, at the end of the hearing, the district court stated that counsel's motion to withdraw as Goddard's attorney was granted. Not only was this procedure backwards, it reveals that the district court concluded that Brown should no longer be Goddard's attorney precisely what should have been resolved at the outset. This claim is misleadingGoddard unquestionably had counsel at the plea-withdrawal hearing because the district court had not granted his attorney's motion to withdraw as counsel until after it denied Goddard's motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Goddard's argument on appeal is that because he no longer wished to be represented by Attorney Brown at the time of the hearing on the motion to withdraw the guilty plea, Attorney Brown therefore had a conflict of interest in representing Goddard at the hearing and he was thereby constructively denied the assistance of counsel. Moreover, Goddard's argument on appeal that he was forced to argue in support of this motion pro se is contradicted by the record. Goddard only spoke to the court after Attorney Brown had argued the motion, the court had considered it, and the court had denied it. Consequently, Goddard's argument fails. We have previously held that where a district court is on notice of a criminal defendant's dissatisfaction with counsel, the court has an affirmative duty to inquire as to the source and nature of that dissatisfactionregardless of whether the attorney is court-appointed or privately retained. Rodriguez Benitez v. United States, 521 F.3d 625, 634 (6th Cir.2008). However, this rule is not implicated here because the district court's disposition of Goddard's motion to withdraw his plea before deciding whether to permit Attorney Brown to withdraw logically followed from Goddard's conduct. The record establishes that Goddard made two requests of Attorney Brown following his guilty plea: (1) that she file a motion to withdraw his guilty plea and (2) that she seek to withdraw as counsel. Goddard did not ask that she withdraw as counsel and then seek new counsel to attempt to withdraw his pleathe requests were made simultaneously. Attorney Brown precisely followed Goddard's instructions: she filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea and to withdraw as counsel in a single pleading. On appeal, Goddard argues that the district court should have considered the latter argument first and then appointed counsel to argue the former motion. But this would have thwarted Goddard's expressed desire and denied him the representation of the attorney he had retained [3] and implicitly wished to argue the motion. Had Goddard not wanted Attorney Brown to argue to the court that his guilty plea should have been withdrawn, he would not have specifically instructed her to file the motion and sent a letter to the court confirming this instruction. Quite obviously, if Attorney Brown sought to withdraw as counsel first, she could not have filed a motion to withdraw Goddard's plea. Consequently, our admonition to district courts in Rodriguez Benitez is not implicated here. In this case, the district court knew about Goddard's dissatisfaction with Attorney Brown, but it also knew that Goddard had directed her to file a motion to withdraw his guilty plea, with the reasonable presumption that she, the author of that motion, would then argue it to the court. Further, neither Attorney Brown nor Goddard requested that another attorney argue the motion to withdraw the guilty plea at the hearing. Consequently, we review the district court's actions for plain error. United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55, 66, 122 S.Ct. 1043, 152 L.Ed.2d 90 (2002) (A defendant's right to review of error he let pass in silence depends upon the plain error rule.). Had Goddard not wanted Attorney Brown to represent him at the hearing on his motion to withdraw his guilty plea, he could have said so or asked her to say so. The district court provided both Attorney Brown and Goddard an opportunity to be heard prior to ruling on the motion. [4] Instead, Goddard's conduct was in conformity with his expressed intention for Attorney Brown to file a motion to seek to withdraw his guilty plea. As the transcript reflects, the district court requested argument from Attorney Brown on the motion to withdraw the guilty plea and then, after she had presented the issue, addressed Goddard and specifically asked Mr. Goddard, do you have anything that you would like to say? and he responded No. At that juncture, Goddard could have quite easily replied: Yes, I want new counsel to argue my motion to withdraw my guilty plea. He did nothing of the sort. The district court then discussed the factors involved in a withdrawal of a guilty plea and denied the motion. Only then did Goddard request the opportunity to speak and the court permitted him to do so at length. And even at this time, Goddard did not complain that Attorney Brown had argued the motion to withdraw. Goddard instead complained at length about his inability to cooperate with the government and the contents of the plea agreement he had signed. We note that, in examining the particular factual circumstances underlying Goddard's motions to withdraw his plea and for substitute counsel, we are not crafting an exception to the general principle that a district court must make inquiries into a defendant's motion to withdraw his counsel before the court proceeds to a critical stage of the proceedings. Instead, we find that Goddard's argument that he was denied representation at the hearing on his motion to withdraw his guilty plea fails because Goddard unquestionably had representation at the hearing, and the district court effectively addressed Goddard's motion for substitute counsel before it proceeded to the next stage of the proceedings, namely Goddard's sentencing hearing. [5] For these reasons, we AFFIRM.