Opinion ID: 217071
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Withdrawal of a guilty plea prior to its acceptance by the court

Text: Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(d) provides: Withdrawing a Guilty or Nolo Contendere Plea. A defendant may withdraw a plea of guilty or nolo contendere: (1) before the court accepts the plea, for any reason or no reason; or (2) after the court accepts the plea, but before it imposes sentence if: (A) the court rejects a plea agreement under Rule 11(c)(5); or (B) the defendant can show a fair and just reason for requesting the withdrawal. The text of the Rule thus contemplates different consequences emanating from a motion to withdraw depending upon whether the district court has accepted the guilty plea. Where the court has not accepted the guilty plea, the defendant may withdraw the plea for any reason or no reason[.] This version of Rule 11(d)(1) first took effect in 2002. Prior to that date, Rule 11's predecessor, Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(e), made no distinction between accepted and unaccepted guilty pleas. As a result, our often cited but no longer apposite case, United States v. Mader, 251 F.3d 1099, 1104 (6th Cir.2001), held that a defendant must provide a fair and just reason to support withdrawal of his guilty plea, even when that plea has not yet been accepted by the district court. The 2002 revision of Rule 11 effectively vitiated that holding in Mader. The revised text now more clearly spell[s] out in Rule 11(d) ... the ability of the defendant to withdraw a plea[] before it is accepted by the court. Fed.R.Crim.P. 11 advisory committee's note. Since the 2002 amendment of Rule 11, three of our sister circuits have recognized that district courts lack any discretion under Rule 11(d)(1) to deny motions to withdraw unaccepted guilty pleas. See United States v. Arami, 536 F.3d 479, 482-83 (5th Cir.2008); United States v. Jones, 472 F.3d 905, 908 (D.C.Cir.2007); United States v. Head, 340 F.3d 628, 629-31 (8th Cir.2003). See also United States v. Shaker, 279 F.3d 494, 497 (7th Cir.2002) (holding, prior to 2002 revision, that Rule 32(e) was triggered only when district court accepted guilty plea so that before acceptance defendant could withdraw plea with no explanation for his change of heart.). In accord with our sister circuits, we hold that the plain text of Rule 11(d)(1) grants a defendant an absolute right to withdraw an unaccepted guilty plea and the district court lacks discretion to deny such a motion. Thus, when reviewing the denial of a motion to withdraw an unaccepted guilty plea, we apply a de novo standard. It would make little sense to employ the abuse of discretion standard normally used to review the denial of a motion to withdraw an accepted guilty plea, given the district court's lack of any discretion to deny the motion to withdraw an unaccepted plea. See Haygood, 549 F.3d at 1052; Jones, 472 F.3d at 908-09. When Mendez-Santana sought to withdraw his unaccepted guilty plea, he possessed an absolute right to withdraw for any reason or no reason. Fed. R.Crim.P. 11(d)(1). We conclude that his reason or motive for making the motion to withdraw could not be questioned and the court lacked any discretion to deny the motion. See Arami, 536 F.3d at 482; Head, 340 F.3d at 629. Therefore, we must vacate the judgment and reverse the denial of the motion to withdraw the guilty plea. We do not reach the merits of the limitations issue raised by the parties.