Opinion ID: 1238393
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: United States v. McTiernan

Text: On October 21, 2008, after Showalter filed his opening brief in this appeal, but before the government filed its answering brief, we issued an opinion in United States v. McTiernan, 546 F.3d 1160 (9th Cir.2008). Showalter devoted his entire reply brief to arguing that McTiernan is dispositive of this appeal in his favor. We disagree. In McTiernan, we stated that bad legal advice can constitute a fair and just reason justifying withdrawal of a defendant's guilty plea. See McTiernan, 546 F.3d at 1167 ([e]rroneous or inadequate legal advice may also constitute a fair and just reason for plea withdrawal (citing Davis, 428 F.3d at 806)). We remanded the case to the district court for an evidentiary hearing because the declaration submitted concerning whether McTiernan was advised properly lacked sufficient clarity and precision that would allow a conclusion that the defendant was properly and adequately advised. Id. at 1168. While a factual question remained in McTiernan as to whether the defendant in fact had been adequately advised of his right to bring a motion to suppress before he pleaded guilty, no factual question exists in this case. The issue before this court is whether the district court abused its discretion when it determined the declarations proffered by Showalter did not constitute newly discovered evidence under Garcia. 401 F.3d at 1008. McTiernan does not overrule or change Garcia, the case upon which the district court primarily relied in its decision.