United States v. Buck, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 22881

Background

Buck pleaded guilty to one count accusing knowingly recruiting, harboring, transporting, providing, and obtaining a named female victim and others for labor and services in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1590, 1594.
The offenses stemmed from a commercial sex trafficking operation in Kansas City, Missouri and Independence, Missouri, where Buck coerced victims and marketed services via a telephone service.
Buck requested new counsel or to proceed pro se; magistrate judge initially considered this, with Hunt remaining as counsel for the remainder of a pre-trial conference.
At the May 12, 2010 plea, the district court conducted a thorough plea colloquy, Buck acknowledged rights waivers, and stated satisfaction with Hunt’s representation; he understood the plea could not be withdrawn if sentenced to 15 years or less.
Buck later moved to withdraw the plea (October 2010) alleging counsel coercion and lack of discovery; the district court conducted hearings and denied withdrawal; Buck proceeded to sentencing with Hunt as counsel for sentencing.
A restitution hearing (December 14, 2010) resulted in Buck being ordered to pay restitution; the district court later issued a written judgment imposing a 15-year sentence with a statement that the term run consecutively to prior sentences, later clarified as an error to be understood as consecutive or as stated in the judgment

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying the motion to withdraw the guilty plea.	Buck argues ineffective counsel and coercion render the plea involuntary.	The district court properly weighed evidence, Buck failed to show a fair and just reason to withdraw, and counsel's performance was not deficient.	No abuse of discretion; denial affirmed.
Whether Buck was entitled to appointment of counsel for the withdrawal hearing.	Buck needed new counsel due to irreconcilable conflicts and ineffective representation.	No right to substitute counsel; adequate inquiry conducted; Buck knowingly and voluntarily chose to proceed pro se if needed.	No error; denial of new counsel affirmed.
Whether the restitution/plea credit and time-served language created ambiguity about concurrent vs consecutive sentencing.	Government urged concurrent sentence per plea agreement; Buck argues concurrent intent implied by oral pronouncement.	Court did not intend to deviate from plea terms; record shows no actual recommendation for concurrency.	Oral pronouncement and written judgment harmonized; no conflict requiring relief.
Whether the written judgment conflicts with the oral pronouncement on consecutiveness and whether correction was proper.	Buck asserts inconsistent pronouncement and attempted correction via judgment.	Ambiguity resolved by careful reading; written judgment clarifies intent; no substantive error.	No conflict; written judgment supplements the oral ruling.

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Cruz, 643 F.3d 639 (8th Cir.2011) (liberal standard to withdraw plea; no automatic right to withdraw; fair and just reason required)
United States v. Heid, 651 F.3d 850 (8th Cir.2011) (withdrawal requires fair and just reason; familiarity with Strickland standards)
United States v. Bastian, 603 F.3d 460 (8th Cir.2010) (knowing and voluntary plea; court should rarely set aside plea when sworn statements support voluntariness)
United States v. Alvarado, 615 F.3d 916 (8th Cir.2010) (court not error in denying withdrawal where plea voluntary and counsel adequate)
United States v. Pacheco, 641 F.3d 970 (8th Cir.2011) (support for voluntariness when defendant claimed to be coerced but representations at plea hearing contradicted claim)
United States v. De Oliveira, 623 F.3d 593 (8th Cir.2010) (no error in denial of withdrawal where defendant admitted voluntariness at plea)
United States v. Murphy, 572 F.3d 563 (8th Cir.2009) (lawyer had access to discovery and discussed charges; defendant’s lack of discovery access did not undermine decision to plead guilty)
United States v. Mentzos, 462 F.3d 830 (8th Cir.2006) (courts may require defendant to choose between counsel and self-representation after proper advisement)
United States v. Exson, 328 F.3d 456 (8th Cir.2003) (district court may decline substitute counsel where defendant had multiple opportunities to raise concerns)
United States v. Swinney, 970 F.2d 494 (8th Cir.1992) (no irreconcilable conflict required for continued representation; defendant may be compelled to proceed pro se or with counsel)
United States v. Mayo, 642 F.3d 628 (8th Cir.2011) (oral sentence controls when in conflict with written judgment; ambiguities resolved in defendant’s favor)
United States v. Tramp, 30 F.3d 1035 (8th Cir.1994) (ambiguous oral pronouncement may be clarified by the entire sentencing record)
United States v. Holloway, 960 F.2d 1348 (8th Cir.1992) (ambiguities in sentence pronouncement resolved in favor of defendant)
United States v. Haversat, 22 F.3d 790 (8th Cir.1994) (reading pronouncements with the full record to discern sentencing intent)