Edmonds v. Commonwealth, 787 S.E.2d 860

Edmonds, a convicted felon (armed robbery, 1998), pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm after felony conviction on March 12, 2014 based on stipulated facts from an Arlington disturbance where police recovered an unloaded gun with a loaded magazine from his pants.
At the scene Edmonds said he took the gun to keep "Bumpy Miller" (an alleged threatener) — who had threatened his girlfriend — from accessing it; Edmonds had BAC .18 at booking.
Before sentencing, with new counsel, Edmonds moved to withdraw his guilty plea, claiming he possessed the gun under duress to avoid imminent harm to his uncle and girlfriend.
The trial court denied the motion, finding no evidence of imminent harm (Miller would have had to leave another building and cross a courtyard), and that Edmonds could have called police rather than take the gun.
The Court of Appeals affirmed; the Virginia Supreme Court likewise affirmed, holding Edmonds failed to show the imminence and necessity required for a duress defense and therefore the trial court did not abuse its discretion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court abused discretion in denying motion to withdraw guilty plea premised on duress	Edmonds: plea withdrawal warranted because he reasonably possessed the gun under duress to prevent imminent harm	Commonwealth: no imminent threat shown; alternative means (call police) existed; duress defense unsupported	Denied — court held Edmonds failed to show imminent threatened harm or lack of alternatives; no abuse of discretion
Appropriate standard for pre-sentencing plea-withdrawal motions	Edmonds: (implicitly) more liberal pre-sentencing standard applies	Commonwealth: argued for stricter manifest injustice standard	Court applied the more liberal pre-sentencing standard but held Edmonds failed under it; did not decide to adopt stricter standard

Parris v. Commonwealth, 189 Va. 321, 52 S.E.2d 872 (Va. 1949) (standard for trial court discretion on plea-withdrawal motions)
Justus v. Commonwealth, 274 Va. 143, 645 S.E.2d 284 (Va. 2007) (pre-sentencing withdrawal standard is more liberal than manifest injustice)
Humphrey v. Commonwealth, 37 Va. App. 36, 553 S.E.2d 546 (Va. Ct. App. 2001) (elements for duress/necessity defense applied to firearm-possession charge)
Buckley v. City of Falls Church, 7 Va. App. 32, 371 S.E.2d 827 (Va. Ct. App. 1988) (duress/necessity element articulation)
Commonwealth v. Sands, 262 Va. 724, 553 S.E.2d 733 (Va. 2001) (immediacy requirement for threatened harm)
McGhee v. Commonwealth, 219 Va. 560, 248 S.E.2d 808 (Va. 1978) (necessity/self-defense principles; fear must be reasonable)
United States v. Crittendon, 883 F.2d 326 (4th Cir. 1989) (no present or imminent threat where fear was generalized)