Motion to withdraw a guilty plea; FedRCrimP 11(d)(2)(B); Denial of a hearing on the motion; Distinguishing United States v Woods & United States v Triplett; Whether defendant raised “factual disputes”; Due Process Clause & ineffective assistance of counsel claims

The court vacated the district court’s denial of defendant-Clark’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea without a hearing, concluding fact questions remained as to whether his plea was “knowing and voluntary” or based on ineffective assistance of counsel. Clark pled guilty to drug and firearm charges. During the proceedings, he had four different lawyers. His third attorney left the practice of law several days after his plea, because of a pending disciplinary action. Clark moved to withdraw his plea based on ineffective assistance of counsel. But the district court denied the motion without a hearing. On appeal, the court found Triplett and Woods instructive. It explained that unlike those cases, Clark actually “requested a hearing” and had raised “factual disputes bearing directly on the knowing and voluntary nature of his plea that are not clearly dispelled by the record.” These disputes arose from the government’s assertions about “statements allegedly made by a now-absent attorney, which assertions contradict Clark’s account. And these disputes bear on the validity of Clark’s guilty plea because they concern whether he had full knowledge of the plea and the evidence in his case, and whether he had proper assistance from counsel.” The court found that the “unresolved factual disputes in the record, coupled with Clark’s multiple attorneys for short periods of representation interspersed with no representation at all, and his representation by an attorney who was undergoing disciplinary proceedings related to his legal practice, ‘bear directly’ on whether the [district] court should have granted Clark’s motion to withdraw.” The court also noted that he was “appealing the district court’s denial of his motion to withdraw his plea and also asserting constitutional claims, arguing that his plea was not valid under the Due Process Clause and that he was denied effective assistance of counsel.” Under the “unusual circumstances, not holding an evidentiary hearing constituted an abuse of discretion.” Remanded for an evidentiary hearing.