Court Opinion

ID: 9805542
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 18:01:11.85415+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:45:52.420594
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-12241    Document: 26-1     Date Filed: 08/31/2023   Page: 1 of 5

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 22-12241
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
       versus
       REGINALD JEJUAN HOWELL,
       a.k.a. Ant,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                    for the Southern District of Alabama
                   D.C. Docket No. 1:20-cr-00004-TFM-B-1
USCA11 Case: 22-12241      Document: 26-1     Date Filed: 08/31/2023     Page: 2 of 5

       2                      Opinion of the Court                 22-12241

                            ____________________

       Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, and WILSON and LUCK, Cir-
       cuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Reginald Howell appeals his convictions following his plea
       of guilty to conspiring to possess with intent to distribute con-
       trolled substances, 21 U.S.C. § 846; brandishing a firearm, 18 U.S.C.
       § 924(c); and Hobbs Act robbery, id. § 1951. Howell challenges the
       denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty pleas on the grounds
       that he was “subjected to extreme coercion and duress from his at-
       torney” and was promised a sentence of no more than 15 years of
       imprisonment and compassionate release after 5 years. He also ar-
       gues that he was misinformed by his plea agreement that he faced
       a consecutive maximum sentence of seven years of imprisonment
       for the firearm offense, which the district court imposed at sentenc-
       ing, though he faced a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.
       Because the record of Howell’s guilty plea supports the decision to
       deny his motion, we affirm.
              We review the denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty 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 and unreasonable.” Id. A defendant may withdraw his pleas
       of guilty before sentencing if he can “show a fair and just reason for
       requesting the withdrawal.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(d)(2)(B). “In deter-
       mining whether the defendant has met this burden, the district
USCA11 Case: 22-12241      Document: 26-1     Date Filed: 08/31/2023     Page: 3 of 5

       22-12241               Opinion of the Court                         3

       court may consider the totality of the circumstances surrounding
       the plea.” United States v. Buckles, 843 F.2d 469, 471–72 (11th Cir.
       1988). The district court may consider factors such as whether the
       defendant enjoyed close assistance of counsel and whether his plea
       was entered knowingly and voluntarily. Id. at 472. The determina-
       tion of whether to credit or of what weight to give a defendant’s
       assertions in support of a motion to withdraw rests solely with the
       district court. Id.
               The district court did not abuse its discretion in determining
       that Howell was not coerced to plead guilty and that he enjoyed
       the close assistance of counsel. The district court carefully consid-
       ered Howell’s motion to withdraw his guilty pleas, Fed. R. Crim.
       P. 11(d)(2)(B), and held an evidentiary hearing where Howell and
       Megan Allgood, the third attorney to represent Howell in these
       proceedings, testified. The district court reasonably discredited
       Howell’s testimony that Allgood had forced him to plead guilty
       and credited Allgood’s testimony that she and co-counsel Christine
       Hernandez had prepared extensively for trial, entered plea negoti-
       ations only after Howell asked Allgood to inquire about a plea deal,
       and did not coerce Howell into entering his pleas. The evidence
       proved that he communicated frequently with Allgood to resolve
       his 14 criminal charges and that he decided to plead guilty after se-
       rious deliberation, including many lengthy discussions with
       Allgood about the evidence, and with knowledge of the conse-
       quences of his decision, including Allgood’s warning that he “could
       face a sentence as high as life” on the firearm offense. That Allgood
       might have expressed optimism that the district court might
USCA11 Case: 22-12241      Document: 26-1      Date Filed: 08/31/2023     Page: 4 of 5

       4                      Opinion of the Court                  22-12241

       impose a lesser sentence does not affect the voluntariness of his
       plea. See Buckles, 843 F.2d at 472 (“A defendant cannot complain of
       coercion where his attorney, employing [her] best professional
       judgment, recommends that the defendant plead guilty.”). We pre-
       sume Howell was being truthful when he stated during his plea
       colloquy that he was assisted by counsel and that he decided to
       plead guilty of his own free will because he was in fact guilty. See
       United States v. Medlock, 12 F.3d 185, 187 (11th Cir. 1994).
                The district court also did not abuse its discretion in deter-
       mining that Howell entered his guilty pleas knowing the conse-
       quences. During a lengthy colloquy, the district court fully com-
       plied with Rule 11. The district court also explained that, as for the
       firearm offense, “the maximum punishment that could be imposed
       [was] a term of imprisonment of not less than seven years, no more
       than life, and a quarter million-dollar fine.” The district court ex-
       plained that “any time that [Howell] would receive as to [the fire-
       arm offense] would be consecutive to any other sentence that [he]
       would receive” for the other offenses. Howell confirmed that he
       understood these penalties. The district court stated that “the point
       that I’m really trying to make and that I want to make sure that you
       follow is that I told you what the maximum sentence could
       be . . . and at this moment no one can tell you exactly
       where . . . your sentence will actually be.” Howell again confirmed
       that he understood. Although he now argues that his plea was un-
       knowing because the plea agreement erroneously stated that he
       faced a maximum seven-year sentence on the firearm offense, in-
       stead of life, he clearly affirmed during the colloquy that he
USCA11 Case: 22-12241     Document: 26-1     Date Filed: 08/31/2023   Page: 5 of 5

       22-12241              Opinion of the Court                       5

       understood that he faced a maximum of life imprisonment for this
       offense. We presume that his statement expressing his understand-
       ing of the maximum sentence during the colloquy is true, and he
       failed to satisfy the heavy burden of proving otherwise. See id.
       Howell failed to establish a “fair and just reason” for withdrawing
       his guilty plea. Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(2)(B).
             We AFFIRM Howell’s convictions and sentence.