Long v. United States
169 A.3d 369
| D.C. | 2017Background
- Mark Long pleaded guilty in Superior Court to one count of conspiracy to defraud the District of Columbia and the OCF arising from concealment of excessive contributions and related acts in the 2010 mayoral campaign.
- Plea agreement recited a felony conspiracy charge carrying up to five years imprisonment in exchange for cooperation; Long signed a Statement of Offense describing two overt acts (salary as a concealed contribution and arranging a secret meeting to induce a candidate to drop out).
- Nearly 18 months after the guilty plea and before sentencing, Long moved to withdraw his plea, asserting factual innocence, a defective Rule 11 colloquy (incorrect maximum sentence), and ineffective counsel for failing to obtain a plea comparable to co-defendants.
- The trial court held hearings, received affidavits (including from prior counsel), and denied the motion, finding (inter alia) that the Rule 11 colloquy and factual proffer were adequate, Long’s assertions of innocence were undermined by his prior sworn proffer, counsel was competent, and the eighteen‑month delay prejudiced the government.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, rejecting Long’s statutory and procedural challenges and upholding the trial court’s exercise of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rule 11 — correct maximum sentence | Long: plea exposed him only to misdemeanor-level (6 months) because object was a misdemeanor under campaign finance law | Government/Long pleaded to conspiracy to defraud the District (a §22-1805a felony) with default 5-year maximum; plea and proffer made this clear | Court: plea was to conspiracy to defraud (felony); Rule 11 properly informed Long of 5-year exposure; no defect |
| Rule 11 — factual basis for plea | Long: court failed to confirm elements (knowing agreement, intent) and sufficiency of proffer | Government: Statement of Offense and in-court proffer established agreement, knowledge, and overt acts; Long affirmed the proffer | Court: factual basis adequate; Statement met conspiracy elements; court’s inquiry satisfied Rule 11 |
| Withdrawal in interest of justice — assertion of innocence | Long: he did not contribute money or assist concealment; only provided services | Government: Long admitted facts in proffer (salary, knowledge of concealment, arranging meeting); prior campaign experience supports knowing participation | Court: trial court permissibly discredited later claim of innocence given sworn proffer and admissions; innocence claim failed |
| Withdrawal in interest of justice — counsel and plea disparities | Long: prior counsel ineffective for not obtaining comparable federal plea deals as co-conspirators | Government: plea offers reflect prosecutorial discretion and differing circumstances; prior counsel pursued misdemeanor, advised plea strategy | Court: counsel was competent per affidavit; comparing co-defendant deals inappropriate; Long failed to meet burden to show ineffective assistance |
Key Cases Cited
- Springs v. United States, 614 A.2d 1 (D.C. 1992) (standard: withdrawal of plea rests in trial court discretion)
- Maske v. United States, 785 A.2d 687 (D.C. 2001) (factors for fair-and-just plea withdrawal)
- Gooding v. United States, 529 A.2d 301 (D.C. 1987) (Rule 11 requires voluntary, intelligent plea and factual basis)
- Malone v. United States, 729 A.2d 888 (D.C. 1999) (Rule 11 concerns may be satisfied by in-court or counsel statements)
- McCullough v. United States, 827 A.2d 48 (D.C. 2003) (elements of criminal conspiracy)
- White v. United States, 863 A.2d 839 (D.C. 2004) (court may credit a defendant’s earlier sworn admissions over later recanted statements)
- Eaglin v. District of Columbia, 123 A.3d 953 (D.C. 2015) (statutory interpretation principles)
- United States v. Jackson, 33 F.3d 866 (7th Cir.) (explaining two types of conspiracy under statute analogous to D.C. law)
- Clark v. United States, 136 A.3d 334 (D.C. 2016) (presumption of reasonable professional assistance in counsel-performance review)
- United States v. Williams, 827 F.3d 1134 (D.C. Cir.) (government’s discretion in plea offers)