Court Opinion

ID: 9467122
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 01:39:12.753253+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:40:10.526358
License: Public Domain

ADAMS, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, as well as prior decisions of our Court, draw a sharp distinction between the permissibility of withdrawing a plea of guilty before sentence is imposed and withdrawing such a plea following sentencing. Because I believe that today’s decision improperly blurs this distinction, and instead effectively adopts the post-sentencing standard for the withdrawal of all guilty pleas, I respectfully dissent.
, I.
Inasmuch as the sequence of events leading up to Don Berry’s plea of guilty and his subsequent motion to withdraw that plea have been fully set forth in the opinion of the Court, there is no need to restate the facts in any detail. Nevertheless, recitation of portion of the plea colloquy demonstrates that Berry pleaded guilty, not because he intended to admit guilt, but because he feared that his alleged cohorts— Elton Rollins and Dale Francois—would combine at his trial to place the blame solely on him. The attendant risks of such testimony were substantial, since the penalty in the Virgin Islands for first degree murder is life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.1 In contrast, a person convicted in the Virgin Islands of second degree murder—the offense to which Berry pleaded guilty—may be sentenced to a prison term ranging from five years to life, and is eligible for parole.2 The plea colloquy also indicates, at least to me, that Berry does not appear to be particularly sophisticated, and may not have fully comprehended the consequences of entering a guilty plea.
After setting forth the terms of the plea agreement, the district judge asked Berry whether they reflected his understanding of the agreement. Berry stated:
But the main reason why I take up the bargain in the first place is because Rollins and Francois involving me in this whole thing. That is the main reason why I come about to say I will request for the bargain, because of the extent where they involving me in the whole thing.
The judge responded, “I understand that is your reasoning,” and then reiterated the terms of the agreement, as well as the differences between first and second degree murder. After Berry replied that he understood and accepted the terms of the agreement, the judge asked if Berry had any questions:
DEFENDANT BERRY: You are talking about if I plead guilty to Second Degree Murder, I won’t have no trial. Is that what you say?
THE COURT: That is right. You don’t need a trial.
DEFENDANT BERRY: Okay.
THE COURT: Because, you see, once you plead guilty and I accept it, you are convicted of the offense and there is no need for a trial because you are admitting that you did it. You didn’t understand that?
*223DEFENDANT BERRY: This is what I was telling you too. When I plead guilty to Second Degree Murder, me ain’t mean that I do it.
THE COURT: What do you mean?
DEFENDANT BERRY: I telling you the extent that the two other defendants involving me in this here, I don’t have no other alternative but to plead because of the possibility of the burden what the government could put on me which is life imprisonment, and that is what I am trying to avoid.
With these facts in mind, then, the pertinent law regarding the permissibility of withdrawing a guilty plea prior to sentencing may be placed in sharper focus.
II.
Rule 32(d) authorizes the trial judge to permit a defendant to withdraw a plea of guilty after sentence has been imposed only “to correct manifest injustice.”3 While the rule is silent as to the standard for the withdrawal of a guilty plea prior to sentencing, the Supreme Court has stated that such withdrawals should be permitted “if for any reason the granting of the privilege seems fair and just.”4 In United States v. Stayton,5 we made reference to the “fair and just” standard of Kerchevai and then declared that, because “[t]he motion to withdraw a guilty plea protects the right of an accused to a trial,” “such requests made before sentencing ‘should be construed liberally in favor of the accused.’ ”6 Although the right to withdraw a plea of guilty prior to sentencing is not absolute, “[a] judge . . . abuses his discretion when a defendant . . . indicates that he does not fully understand that the facts he is prepared to admit constitute the offense charged, and the government would not be prejudiced by permitting the plea to be withdrawn.”7 Only if “the government can show substantial prejudice, then the motion in the trial court’s discretion, may be denied.”8 In the absence of proof of such prejudice, “[ljeave to withdraw a guilty plea prior to sentencing should be freely allowed.”9 Utilizing these standards in United States v. Crowley,10 we identified three factors to be considered in reviewing the denial of a presentencing motion to withdraw a guilty plea: (1) the defendant’s assertion of his innocence; (2) the prejudice to the government that would result from such a withdrawal; and (3) the reasons for the motion to withdraw the plea.11
Application of these criteria to the facts of this case, it seems to me, demonstrates that the district court abused its discretion in denying Berry’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea. In an affidavit accompanying the motion, Berry asserted his innocence. The majority acknowledges this, but discounts its significance in light of the trial court’s finding that Berry’s protestation of innocence “lacked credibility.” Although the Court correctly observes that the mere assertion of innocence is not a sufficient condition for the granting of a motion to withdraw a plea,12 it errs in relying on the trial court’s rejection of Berry’s claim of innocence. As we held in United States v. *224Young,13 “In hearing a motion to withdraw a guilty plea, it is not a function of the district court to evaluate the guilt or innocence of the defendant. Nor is that the role of this Court at this time.” Hence, unlike the majority, I believe that, the trial court’s finding that Berry’s assertion of innocence lacked credibility is irrelevant not only to our review of that court’s decision, but also to the district court’s own consideration of the motion. Although a claim of innocence may not be a determinative factor, the trial court must take it as true in considering the defendant’s motion to withdraw a guilty plea and weigh it in favor of granting the motion.
The majority concludes that the second factor—prejudice to the prosecution—also supports the district court’s decision. It notes that “the government alleges prejudice in several respects.”14 Specifically, the prosecution argues that it would be prejudiced because the trial of Berry’s codefend-ant, Francois, has been completed, and therefore it would “waste judicial resources to try Berry.” The prosecution also avers that it would be prejudiced because Berry, in preparing his own defense, would have the benefit of reviewing the case against Francois. It asserts that because Rollins, who testified at the trial of Francois, has now been sentenced, his cooperation at Berry’s trial would be “uncertain.” Finally, it claims that it “might” be unable to locate Francois who could be called to testify against Berry, were the latter brought to trial. Each of these propositions is essentially speculative.
Although the concerns expressed, if supported by evidence in the record, might well constitute grounds for denying the motion to withdraw the guilty plea, mere allegations of prejudice may not be relied on by the district court. In United States v. DeCavaleante,15 on which the majority places heavy reliance, we affirmed the denial of a pre-sentence motion by the reputed leader of the New Jersey mafia to withdraw his guilty plea. In DeCavaleante, then District Judge Garth held a full evidentiary hearing on the question of prejudice and made extensive findings of fact. He found specifically that the government’s witnesses had dispersed and that the whereabouts of a key witness were unknown. Accordingly, Judge Garth concluded that the prosecution would be prejudiced were the defendant permitted to withdraw his guilty plea.
In contrast, there is no indication in the present record that the prosecution produced any evidence in support of its allegations of prejudice. For example, there is no suggestion that the prosecution in any way sought to locate Francois or that Rollins would indeed be reluctant to testify against Berry. While it is true that Rollins has been sentenced, it does not necessarily follow, as the majority implies, that he no longer has an incentive to testify for the government. His cooperation could well be viewed approvingly by the parole authorities when, at some future date, they will pass on Rollins’ suitability for early release from prison. Thus, it is not at all clear that, were Berry permitted to withdraw his plea, the prosecution would be prejudiced with respect to its key witnesses. .Nor is the prosecution’s claim that Berry’s knowledge of its case against Francois would give Berry an unfair advantage at his own trial persuasive. There is no indication that the evidence and trial strategy used against Berry would be the same as that employed against Francois. To the extent that such similarities may exist, the prejudice to the prosecution is no greater than in cases in which codefendants successfully have their trial severed, and the trial of one takes place before the trial of the others. The argument that extra-judicial resources might be expended if Berry were tried does not, at least in my view, rise to the level of “a showing of substantial prejudice” that is required by the law of this Court before a *225trial judge may refuse to permit a defendant prior to sentencing to withdraw a plea of guilty.16
The majority also concludes that the reason given by Berry for his motion to withdraw the guilty plea lacks merit. Berry claims in an uncontroverted affidavit that he pleaded guilty to second degree murder, not because he wanted to confess guilt, but because he feared that Rollins and Francois would attempt to place the blame exclusively on him. This, he believed, would almost ensure a first degree murder conviction. After learning that Francois did not testify at his own trial and in fact was acquitted, Berry avers that he became convinced that Rollins and Francois would not testify against him. Consequently, the sole basis for his decision to plead guilty, as demonstrated by the colloquy set forth in part I above, at least in Berry’s mind, was no longer valid. Indeed, according to Berry’s affidavit, within twenty-four hours of the completion of Francois’ trial and within forty-eight hours of the entry of his own guilty plea, Berry requested to see his attorney in order that his plea might be withdrawn.
Whether or not Berry was correct in assuming that Rollins and Francois would testify that he was the person who committed the homicide, in my view Berry’s change of mind in respect to their testimony is sufficient under the law of this Court to justify the motion to withdraw his guilty plea. In light of Berry’s assertion of innocence, as well as the indication from the plea colloquy that Berry pleaded guilty based on a perception of Rollins’ and Francois’ intentions that he no longer holds, Berry obviously was not satisfied with his decision to plead guilty. As a consequence, I am concerned that Berry may have acted without ade-guate knowledge of the facts underlying his plea and therefore may not have pleaded guilty wholly voluntarily. In the absence of demonstrated prejudice to the prosecution, there is not sufficient justification for denying Berry’s attempt to plead in accord with his expressed desires.
III.
A motion to withdraw a plea of guilty should be considered with the highest level of care, for it implicates the Sixth Amendment right of the defendant to a public trial by jury. Therefore, before a district court may deny such a motion, it must be absolutely convinced that the interest of justice in fact would be served by refusing the defendant’s request to assert his constitutional rights. As this Court has previously stated:
The liberal rule for withdrawal of a guilty plea before sentence is consistent with the efficient administration of criminal justice. It reduces the number of appeals contesting the “knowing and vol-untariness” of a guilty plea, and avoids the difficulties of disentangling such claims. It also ensures that a defendant is not denied a right to trial by jury unless he clearly waives it.17
Because I believe that, on the record before us, the district court abused its discretion in denying Berry’s pre-sentencing motion to withdraw his guilty plea, I would reverse the judgment of conviction and remand the case with instructions to permit Berry to withdraw his guilty plea and enter a new plea. At the very least, I would have the district court conform to the practice employed by Judge Garth in DeCavalcante, and conduct an evidentiary hearing on the question of prejudice to the prosecution. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.18

. V.I.Code tit. 14, § 923(a) (Supp.1978).

. Id § 923(b).

. Fed.R.Crim.P. 32(d).

. Kercheval v. United States, 274 U.S. 220, 224, 47 S.Ct. 582, 583, 71 L.Ed. 1009 (1927) (dictum) (emphasis added).

. 408 F.2d 559 (3d Cir. 1969).

. Id. at 560 (emphasis deleted) (quoting Kirshberger v. United States, 392 F.2d 782, 784 (5th Cir. 1968)).

. United States v. Young, 424 F.2d 1276, 1279 (3d Cir. 1970).

. United States v. Stayton, 408 F.2d at 561 (emphasis in original).

. Id. at 560 (quoting Poole v. United States, 250 F.2d 396, 400 (D.C.Cir. 1957)).

. 529 F.2d 1066 (3rd Cir.), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 995, 96 S.Ct. 2209, 48 L.Ed.2d 820 (1976).

. Id. at 1072; see United States v. Barker, 514 F.2d 208, 218-22 (D.C.Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 1013, 95 S.Ct. 2420, 44 L.Ed.2d 682 (1975).

. Majority opinion, supra, at 11 (quoting United States v. Morgan, 567 F.2d 479, 493 (D.C. Cir. 1977).

. 424 F.2d 1276, 1280 (3d Cir. 1970).

. Majority opinion, supra, at 221 (emphasis added).

. 449 F.2d 139 (3d Cir. 1971) (per curiam), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 1039, 92 S.Ct. 715, 30 L.Ed.2d 731 (1972).

. United States v. Stayton, 408 F.2d at 561-62.

. United States v. Young, 424 F.2d at 1279.

. It is also worth noting the disparity between the sentences imposed on Berry and Rollins, both of whom pleaded guilty to murder in the second degree. Rollins received a 12 year term of imprisonment, while Berry was sentenced to a prison term of 35 years.
The district judge may well have had legitimate reasons for imposing a significantly harsher sentence on Berry, but Berry and the public generally will never know what those reasons were because the court did not enunciate the respective bases for the two sentences. I have commented on several occasions that *226district judges should be required to set forth the reasons for the sentences they impose. United States v. Montoya, 612 F.2d 792, 794 (3d Cir. 1980) (per curiam) (Adams, J., concurring); United States v. Del Piano, 593 F.2d 539, 540 (3d Cir.) (per curiam) (Adams, J., concurring), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 944, 99 S.Ct. 2889, 61 L.Ed.2d 315 (1979); United States v. Bazzano, 570 F.2d 1120, 1130 (3d Cir. 1977) (Adams, J., concurring), cert. denied, 436 U.S. 917, 98 S.Ct. 2261, 56 L.Ed.2d 757 (1978).
Inasmuch as the arguments in support of such a requirement were exhaustively explored in Dei Piano and Bazzano, there is no need today to repeat those discussions. Nevertheless, it is appropriate to observe that a statement of the reasons underlying the disparity in the sentences imposed on Berry and Rollins might go far towards convincing Berry that he was not punished more severely because he attempted to withdraw bis original plea of guilty. As I stated in Dei Piano :
[A] statement of reasons for the sentence would have served as an opportunity to demonstrate to the defendant, his well-wishers, and the public, what undoubtedly was the fact, that the judge was not swayed by [improper considerations]; that, as characteristic of the judiciary, he regards the state-sanctioned deprivation of liberty to be a weighty matter; and that the criminal process is basically fair and legitimate. Inasmuch as the judiciary . can retain its legitimacy only so long as it is seen to be guided by a sense of justice, the importance of such an explanation should not be underestimated.
593 F.2d at 543 (Adams, J., concurring).