Opinion ID: 216187
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Failure to Withdraw Pleas Earlier

Text: At the evidentiary hearing, Fitzmorris testified that, the very evening after entering his guilty pleas, he asked his attorney to withdraw them. Defense counsel testified and acknowledged that Fitzmorris asked to withdraw his pleas at some point, but also stated that on several other occasions, Fitzmorris “would go from being reluctant about entering a plea to desiring to cooperate.” (08-4140 R. 216, Evidentiary Hr’g Tr. 31.) Defense counsel also testified that, due to an incident after Fitzmorris’s change-of-plea hearing,1 the Government informed him that it was unlikely to move for a downward departure because of the perception that Fitzmorris was untrustworthy. The district court concluded that Fitzmorris delayed filing his motion simply because he was unsure whether to withdraw his pleas. The district court noted that Fitzmorris did not express any desire to withdraw his pleas when meeting with his probation officer, but instead submitted a written statement accepting responsibility for his acts. The court also observed that Fitzmorris filed his motion after he reviewed the PSR, which recommended a sentence of 35 years. The record supports the district court’s conclusion. Additionally, in a letter to his attorney dated March 18, 2007, Fitzmorris stated: “if we can’t fix these crazy allegations . . . or if [the 1 Following the hearing, Fitzmorris was found to have removed a round brass plate outlet cover from the courthouse and attempted to smuggle it back to his jail cell, wrapped in Saran Wrap. -7- Nos. 08-4140/09-3207 United States v. Fitzmorris prosecutor] and ATF are not willing to work with me . . . , I wish to withdraw my plea and have my trial!” (08-4140 R. 186, 2d Mot. Withdraw Plea, Attach. A, at 1.) At most, this letter shows that six weeks after entering his guilty pleas, Fitzmorris was having second thoughts based on the recommended sentence; it is not evidence that he pleaded with an “unsure heart and confused mind.” Bashara, 27 F.3d at 1181. Thus, the district court did not abuse its discretion in weighing this factor against granting Fitzmorris’s motion.