Court Opinion

ID: 9478319
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 06:46:27.343507+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:46:22.305861
License: Public Domain

JOHN P. MOORE, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
I must respectfully dissent from that part of the court’s opinion which holds that North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 91 S.Ct. 160, 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970), does not require a finding of “strong evidence” to substantiate the guilty plea of a defendant who subsequently protests his innocence. I further disagree with remanding this case for further inquiry. It is my judgment the attempted Alford plea was invalid, and allowing the trial court the opportunity to revitalize it is a post hoc disposition that is unparalleled in our jurisprudence. The plea must be vacated, and the case remanded for reinstatement of the original plea of not guilty.
I reach this conclusion because I believe Alford teaches there is only one way a negotiated guilty plea can be upheld in the face of a defendant’s protestation of innocence. To sustain an Alford plea, a reviewing court must find evidence presented at the taking of the plea which strongly suggests the guilt of the accused. Without such strong evidence, refusal to permit the withdrawal of the plea would result in the anachronism of forcing a conviction to stand without evidence of guilt.1
Alford recognizes the truism that occasionally defendants perceive a personal advantage in pleading to an offense even though they believe themselves innocent of the actual charge to which the plea applies. In those circumstances, when there is evidence of a factual basis for the charge, and when that evidence is before the court when the plea is accepted, Alford permits the plea to stand even though the defendant later claims innocence and challenges the plea.2 In those cases, the plea will be enforced even though the question of innocence may remain factually unresolved. But, I find nothing in Alford which suggests the plea should stand if the government’s evidence contains a vital default.
Such is the case here. The defendant persisted, as he persists today, that he had authority to sell the cattle which were the subject of the charge. What makes this case remarkable is that the government’s statement of the nature of its proof given to the trial court at the time of sentencing was devoid of any suggestion that Mr. Keiswetter did not have that authority. Nothing in the government’s representation of its evidence suggests that it could controvert the contention upon which the defendant’s subsequent protestation of innocence is based. For that matter, I find nothing in the record from which it could be fairly presumed that the issue of the defendant’s specific intent to defraud was disputed by the government. This defect is not merely technical. It goes to the very heart of the defendant’s claim that the plea should be set aside.
I also disagree with the majority that this case can be resolved by subjecting it to a simple Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(f) analysis. This case is not akin to United States v. Allen, 804 F.2d 244 (3rd Cir.1986), cert. denied, *999480 U.S. 922, 107 S.Ct. 1384, 94 L.Ed.2d 697 (1987), relied upon to reach that conclusion. Allen does not involve an Alford plea; therefore, from the outset, the case arises in a different context. The Allen court was not faced with a defendant’s protestation of innocence when it decided whether his plea should be vacated. Contrarily, Mr. Keiswetter’s claim of innocence is of great importance because we are called upon to determine whether that protestation is invalidated by evidence of his guilt. Alford, 400 U.S. at 38, 91 S.Ct. at 167.
An even more critical distinction between the two cases, however, lies in the fact that during the taking of the plea in Allen, there was evidence presented to the court to support the charge. In our case there was no such evidence, and, therefore, there is no basis for assuming that the default in the government’s statement of its evidence can be overcome on remand.3 Instead, the majority surmises the completeness of the government’s ease, and rather than remanding to put the issue of guilt to trial, the court lets the prosecution have another crack at posturing a proper plea.
The outcome here must be governed by McCarthy v. United States, 394 U.S. 459, 89 S.Ct. 1166, 22 L.Ed.2d 418 (1969). In that case, the Court determined a plea of guilty was improvidently accepted by the trial court without complying with Rule 11. The Court held that the violation required that the guilty plea be set aside and the defendant allowed to replead. I can find no distinction between McCarthy and the case before us.
While McCarthy involved a trial court’s failure to inquire whether the defendant understood the nature of the charge and the consequences of his plea, it still is in parallel with the instant case. In both cases, there is a default in the evidence necessary to sustain the plea. In McCarthy, the default was evidence of the defendant’s understanding. In our case, the default is in the evidence of the defendant’s fraudulent intent. If the default in McCarthy, a simple Rule 11 case, was sufficient to require the avoidance of the plea, the same result must adhere to this case. We have always followed this course. See United State v. Theron, 849 F.2d 477 (10th Cir.1988); United States v. Blackner, 721 F.2d 703 (10th Cir.1983); United States v. Thomas, 468 F.2d 422 (10th Cir.1972), cert. denied, 410 U.S. 935, 93 S.Ct. 1389, 35 L.Ed.2d 599 (1973); United States v. Townsend, 453 F.2d 1334 (10th Cir.1972).
I see no reason why that remedy should not be followed here.4
ORDER
Appellant’s suggestion for rehearing en banc is granted. Within 20 days of the date of this order, the parties may file simultaneous briefs, not to exceed 20 pages. Argument, limited to 15 minutes per side, will be heard Thursday, January 19,1989 at 2:30 P. M.
■Judges Logan and Baldock voted to deny en banc consideration.

. Contrary to the suggestion of the majority, I cannot attach significance to the statement contained in the so-called "Petition to Enter Plea of Guilty” signed by the defendant. Given the context of the plea, the defendant’s signature on the document is no more significant than his willingness to plead guilty. It is no more logical to presume that the statements contained in the petition could provide evidence of guilt agreed to by the defendant than it would be to presume that the plea itself is an admission of the validity of the charge.

. The test is whether the record overcomes the defendant's protestation of innocence. In Alford, contrasting the defendant’s plea with a nolo contendere plea, the Court stated:
Nor can we perceive any material difference between a plea that refuses to admit commission of the criminal act and a plea containing a protestation of innocence when, as in the instant case, a defendant intelligently concludes that his interests require entry of a guilty plea and the record before the judge contains strong evidence of actual guilt. 400 U.S. at 37, 91 S.Ct. at 167. (Emphasis added.)

. Viewed in its best light, the government’s statement of its evidence at best made problematic whether it was capable of proving the defendant acted with fraudulent intent. As that was the very circumstance upon which the defendant asserted his innocence, there is nothing in the defendant’s statements which cure this fundamental defect.

. In applying Allen, the majority fails to recognize the uniqueness of the case. Contrary to this case, a remand for clarification was in order because there was evidence in the record, had it been relied upon by the trial court, that supported the conclusion that there was a factual basis for the plea. Under this circumstance, the remand was not to revitalize the plea, but to allow the trial court to eliminate the ambiguity. There is no ambiguity to clarify here. The trial court was presented with no evidence to overcome the defendant’s protestation of innocence; therefore, the plea must be vacated. Indeed, it was upon this rationale that the court in Allen found McCarthy inapposite.