Court Opinion

ID: 9964328
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-29 18:01:03.153096+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:25:18.973131
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-12393    Document: 39-1     Date Filed: 04/29/2024   Page: 1 of 4

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                   In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                          ____________________

                                No. 23-12393
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
       versus
       ANTHONY SHAWNN EWELL,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Southern District of Florida
                   D.C. Docket No. 0:22-cr-60257-WPD-1
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 23-12393      Document: 39-1     Date Filed: 04/29/2024     Page: 2 of 4

       2                      Opinion of the Court                 23-12393

       Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, and NEWSOM and ANDERSON,
       Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Anthony Ewell appeals his conviction following his plea of
       guilty to possessing child pornography. 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4)(B).
       Ewell challenges the denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty
       plea on the grounds that he was deprived of close assistance of
       counsel and that the district court failed to ensure that his plea was
       free from coercion. Because the record of Ewell’s guilty plea sup-
       ports the decision to deny his motion, we affirm.
              We review the denial of Ewell’s motion to withdraw his plea
       for abuse of discretion. United States v. Brehm, 442 F.3d 1291, 1298
       (11th Cir. 2006). We will not reverse unless that decision is “arbi-
       trary or unreasonable.” Id.
               A defendant may withdraw his plea of guilty before sentenc-
       ing if he can “show a fair and just reason for requesting the with-
       drawal.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(d)(2)(B). “In determining whether the
       defendant has met this burden, the district court may consider the
       totality of the circumstances surrounding the plea.” United States v.
       Buckles, 843 F.2d 469, 471–72 (11th Cir. 1988). It may consider
       among those circumstances whether the defendant enjoyed close
       assistance of counsel and whether his plea was entered knowingly
       and voluntarily. Id. at 472. The determination of whether to credit
       or what weight to give a defendant’s assertions in support of a mo-
       tion to withdraw rests solely with the district court. Id.
USCA11 Case: 23-12393      Document: 39-1      Date Filed: 04/29/2024     Page: 3 of 4

       23-12393               Opinion of the Court                          3

               The district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that
       Ewell enjoyed the close assistance of counsel and that he was not
       coerced to plead guilty. Ewell received assistance from two “expe-
       rienced” federal public defenders, and he confirmed during the plea
       colloquy that he was satisfied with their advice and that his attor-
       neys had not forced him to enter a plea. The district court granted
       a three-month continuance for his attorneys to review his case and,
       after the government produced additional discovery two weeks be-
       fore the plea hearing, his attorneys confirmed that they reviewed
       the discovery, including the forensic report on Ewell’s computer
       and storage devices. During the plea hearing, the district court re-
       cessed for over a half hour to allow Ewell to confer with his attor-
       neys about the new discovery and any concerns he might have, and
       Ewell later confirmed several times that he did not need more time
       to think about his decision or to speak with his attorneys. See United
       States v. Medlock, 12 F.3d 185, 187 (11th Cir.1994) (“There is a strong
       presumption that . . . statements [made by a defendant] during [his
       guilty plea] colloquy are true.”). Ewell also denied feeling “forced
       into making a decision” and affirmed more than once that he un-
       derstood that he was not required to follow his attorneys’ advice,
       that he could proceed to trial instead of pleading guilty, and that by
       pleading guilty he might risk denying his attorneys “a chance to
       finish any investigation that they may have otherwise wanted to
       have conducted.” See id.
             The district court also did not abuse its discretion in finding
       that Ewell entered his plea knowingly and voluntarily. Ewell re-
       sponded appropriately and intelligently to several questions about
USCA11 Case: 23-12393     Document: 39-1      Date Filed: 04/29/2024    Page: 4 of 4

       4                      Opinion of the Court                23-12393

       his understanding of the charge, the consequences of pleading
       guilty, and the maximum penalties. The district court confirmed
       that he understood the rights that he was waiving by pleading
       guilty and that he did not need more time to discuss his case with
       his attorneys or to think about his decision. Ewell confirmed that
       he was not threatened or forced to plead guilty, he was pleading
       guilty freely and voluntarily, and he understood that he could not
       withdraw his plea later because he “made a mistake” or because his
       “lawyer was no good.” And Ewell explained at the plea hearing that
       although the “stress of the case” was bothering him and the ques-
       tion about his mental health “raised some feelings,” he still was
       “ready to make [the decision to plead].” See id. In the light of
       Ewell’s repeated and unequivocal statements, the district court was
       entitled to find that he voluntarily decided to plead guilty with the
       close assistance of two attorneys. Buckles, 843 F.2d at 472.
             We AFFIRM Ewell’s conviction.