Opinion ID: 726087
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Leake's Remedy

Text: 60 Leake pleaded guilty under Fed.R.Crim.Proc. 11(a)(2), which provides: 61 Conditional Pleas. With the approval of the court and the consent of the government, a defendant may enter a conditional plea of guilty or nolo contendere, reserving in writing the right, on appeal from the judgment, to review of the adverse determination of any specified pretrial motion. A defendant who prevails on appeal shall be allowed to withdraw the plea. (Emphasis added). 62 The plea agreement between Leake and the United States provided the following: 63 Should the Court of Appeals determine that the Motion to Suppress Evidence should have been sustained and that the United States cannot use in its case-in-chief the evidence identified in its responses to the Motion to Suppress, then, and only in that event, will the defendant be allowed to withdraw the plea entered under this agreement. 64 The federal rule and the terms of the plea agreement make clear the implications on the conditional plea if the defendant is fully successful on appeal. The question not addressed is the effect of a partially successful appeal. This Court has determined that Leake's motion to suppress should have been granted in part and denied in part. The parties have not cited, and this court has not discovered, any authority on whether partial success on appeal is sufficient to allow a defendant to withdraw a guilty plea. 65 Leake's appeal resulted in the exclusion of the testimony of Joseph O'Daniel, information connecting Leake to the alias John Sandusky, and evidence of the U-Haul receipt. Leake has thus been successful in excluding what appears to be the most damning evidence against him. Under these facts, we hold that Leake has prevail[ed], to use the language of Rule 11(a)(2), and is entitled to withdraw his plea. 21