674 F. App'x 396
5th Cir.2017Background
- Alarcon Wiggins faced federal charges including conspiracy to obtain labor by force (18 U.S.C. § 1594(b)) and interstate transportation for prostitution (18 U.S.C. § 2421); trial set for August 12, 2013.
- In May 2013 Wiggins rejected a government plea offer; at a June 27, 2013 status conference the district court questioned Wiggins about the plea and discussed potential sentences, including ‘‘stacking’’ and life exposure if convicted at trial.
- Wiggins pleaded guilty on August 8, 2013 to two counts pursuant to a plea agreement; at rearraignment he swore the plea was voluntary and admitted the factual basis.
- Wiggins sought to withdraw his plea (letter Aug. 23, motion Sept. 24), claiming coercion by defense counsel and an informal promise from the government to release two codefendants if he pleaded guilty.
- The district court denied the motion after a hearing, applying the seven Carr factors; Wiggins was sentenced to 212 months and appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Wiggins) | Defendant's Argument (Gov't / Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court improperly participated in plea negotiations in violation of Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1) | Court’s extended comments at status conference coerced or influenced plea and violated Rule 11(c)(1) | Court acted to ensure defendant understood plea/sentencing; even if error occurred, it did not affect substantial rights | Affirmed — even assuming error, no plain-error prejudice; no reasonable probability Wiggins would not have pled absent comments |
| Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying motion to withdraw guilty plea under Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(d)(2)(B) | Plea was involuntary because counsel coerced him and an informal government promise induced the plea (release of codefendants) | Plea was knowing and voluntary (sworn statements at rearraignment); insufficient evidence of coercion or an informal promise; Carr factors weighed against withdrawal | Affirmed — district court did not abuse discretion after weighing Carr factors |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Pena, 720 F.3d 561 (5th Cir. 2013) (Rule 11(c)(1) prohibits judicial participation in plea negotiations)
- Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (2009) (plain-error review framework requires showing of error affecting substantial rights)
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (standards for exercising discretion to correct plain error)
- United States v. Daigle, 63 F.3d 346 (5th Cir. 1995) (purposes of the Rule 11(c)(1) prohibition: avoid coercion, preserve impartiality, maintain appearance of neutrality)
- United States v. Carr, 740 F.2d 339 (5th Cir. 1984) (seven-factor test for motions to withdraw guilty pleas)
- United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74 (2004) (defendant must show reasonable probability that, but for error, he would not have pleaded guilty)
- United States v. Lampazianie, 251 F.3d 519 (5th Cir. 2001) (solemn declarations in open court carry strong presumption of verity)