United States v. James

In United States v. James, No. 22-30734 (5th Cir. Jan. 10, 2024) (unpublished), the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision to deny a defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea even though the defendant argued that ineffective assistance of counsel had led him to plead guilty.

In the district court, two defense attorneys advised their client of a plea offer but also gave inaccurate advice about the ramifications of the offer. Counsel said that the defendant would likely be convicted at trial, after which he would face 30 years to life in prison. But under the plea offer, counsel said, the defendant would face a likely Sentencing Guideline range of 15 to 20 years. Counsel never warned the defendant that he could still receive a life sentence if he pled guilty. The defendant accepted the offer and pled guilty.

When the Presentence Investigation Report (“PSR”) came back, it calculated a Guideline range of life imprisonment. At that point, the defendant filed a pro se motion to withdraw his guilty plea, and the court later held an evidentiary hearing. Defense counsel testified that they had “guesstimated” what sentence the defendant would receive, and they never warned him that he could still receive a life sentence. In fact, counsel testified that he did not think the defendant would have pled guilty had he known a life sentence was possible. Nevertheless, the district court denied the defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea and ultimately sentenced the defendant to 30 years in prison.

On appeal, the Fifth Circuit applied the familiar Carr test for whether a defendant should be permitted to withdraw his plea, see United States v. Carr, 740 F.2d 339, 343 (5th Cir. 1984), noting that district courts have “broad discretion” on this issue.

In part, the Fifth Circuit noted that the motion to withdraw was not filed until 21 months after the guilty plea and 8 years after the beginning of the charged conspiracy — both of which meant the Government would be prejudiced by withdrawal of the plea. And even though defense counsel admittedly misadvised the defendant, they provided “close assistance of counsel” because they had filed motions, negotiated a plea agreement, and visited the defendant in jail.

Finally, the defendant was unable to show prejudice. That is, he failed to establish that he would have proceeded to trial had he received correct legal advice. At the guilty-plea hearing, the district court had correctly warned the defendant that a life sentence was possible, and defense counsel later testified that “there was no plausible chance of an acquittal at trial.”

Ultimately, even though the defendant argued that he had trusted his attorneys and reasonably relied on their advice that he would receive a lower sentence, that was not enough to justify withdrawal of his guilty plea, and the district court did not abuse its discretion.