Plea agreements; Motion to withdraw a guilty plea based on ineffective assistance of counsel; United States v. Goddard

The court affirmed the district court’s denial of defendant-Carson’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea, rejecting his ineffective assistance of counsel claims based on his alleged misunderstanding about his plea. He pled guilty to engaging in a racketeering conspiracy. After he received a “Notice of Intent to Not Seek the Death Penalty” (the Notice) he twice spoke to his attorney about it. At his change of plea hearing, he confirmed he understood the plea and its consequences. The district court accepted his plea. Carson filed a pro se motion to withdraw his plea, arguing he entered it “‘before [he] fully understood what [he] was actually saying [he] was guilty of,’ and that he entered the plea because he thought he would otherwise receive the death penalty.” His counsel also moved to withdraw the plea. The district court denied both requests. Days before sentencing, Carson sent a letter to the district court again trying to withdraw his plea and raising the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel for the first time. The district court eventually relieved his attorney, appointed new counsel, held an evidentiary hearing, and found that Carson “was not ‘operating under a misunderstanding’” as to his possible sentence when he entered into his plea. He was sentenced to 360 months. He argued his motion to withdraw his plea should have been granted because his attorney told him that the 30-year sentence would actually only result in a 17-year sentence, and also originally told him he could face the death penalty. Because the record was sufficiently developed, the court considered the merits of his ineffective assistance claims. It rejected his length-of-incarceration argument where he failed to show “deficient performance or prejudice.” It was not clear to the district court what his attorney told him about the sentence length. The attorney testified that no promise was made as to the length of incarceration, or about good-time credits. The court concluded that Carson did not show deficient performance, and that even if he had, he could not establish prejudice because he was adequately advised during the magistrate judge’s plea colloquy. The court also rejected his claim that he pled guilty based on fear of the death penalty where he received the Notice several weeks before pleading guilty and spoke to his counsel twice during that time. Thus, he again could not show deficient performance. The court also held that the district court did not err by denying his second motion to withdraw his plea where “the seven Goddard factors weigh[ed] against withdrawal.”