Court Opinion

ID: 9930429
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-06 21:01:02.993617+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:16:23.172525
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-4403      Doc: 28         Filed: 02/05/2024     Pg: 1 of 3

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-4403

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        JEFFREY TUDDER,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Norfolk. John A. Gibney, Jr., Senior District Judge. (2:22-cr-00098-JAG-DEM-1)

        Submitted: January 30, 2024                                       Decided: February 5, 2024

        Before KING, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Elizabeth L. Van Pelt, Mary L. Stoney, LIBBEY VAN PELT LAW, PLLC,
        Arlington, Virginia, for Appellant. Jessica D. Aber, United States Attorney, Joseph Attias,
        Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, Victoria Liu, Special Assistant
        United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk,
        Virginia, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-4403      Doc: 28          Filed: 02/05/2024     Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Jeffrey Tudder appeals his convictions following his guilty plea to possession with

        intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C), and possession

        of a firearm as a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He argues that, at

        the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 colloquy, the magistrate judge erred in finding his guilty plea

        knowing and intelligent because he was under the influence of an antianxiety medication

        and that the magistrate judge never asked him about the medication’s name, dosage, or side

        effects. We affirm.

               Because Tudder neither raised an objection during the Rule 11 colloquy nor moved

        to withdraw his guilty plea in the district court, we review the magistrate judge’s

        acceptance of the guilty plea only for plain error. United States v. Ziegler, 1 F.4th 219, 228

        (4th Cir. 2021) (holding that plain error review applies when a defendant represented by

        counsel fails to raise a competency issue in the district court). To establish plain error,

        Tudder “must show that: (1) an error occurred; (2) the error was plain; and (3) the error

        affected his substantial rights.”      United States v. Lockhart, 947 F.3d 187, 191

        (4th Cir. 2020) (en banc).

               “Before a court may accept a guilty plea, it must ensure that the defendant is

        competent to enter the plea.” United States v. Nicholson, 676 F.3d 376, 382 (4th Cir. 2012)

        (internal quotation marks omitted). A defendant is competent if he “has sufficient present

        ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding” and

        “a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him.” United

        States v. Moussaoui, 591 F.3d 263, 291 (4th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted).

                                                      2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-4403      Doc: 28         Filed: 02/05/2024      Pg: 3 of 3

        “For medication to render a defendant incompetent, the medication must have so impaired

        his mental faculties that he was incapable of full understanding and appreciation of the

        charges against him, of comprehending his constitutional rights, and of realizing the

        consequences of his plea.” Nicholson, 676 F.3d at 382 (internal quotation marks omitted).

               At the plea colloquy, Tudder informed the magistrate judge that his antianxiety

        medication did not affect his ability to understand the proceedings. Furthermore, Tudder’s

        answers to the magistrate judge’s questions throughout the colloquy reflected that Tudder

        understood the charges, his rights, and the proceedings. Accordingly, we conclude that the

        magistrate judge did not plainly err in finding Tudder’s guilty plea knowing and intelligent.

               We therefore affirm the criminal judgment. We dispense with oral argument

        because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this

        court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                                                        AFFIRMED

                                                     3