United States v. Emanuel Harrison
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 966
5th Cir.2015Background
- Emanuel James Harrison pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to file false claims as part of a plea agreement that set an 84‑month sentence and included an appeal waiver but reserved the right to challenge voluntariness and ineffective assistance of counsel.
- At rearraignment Harrison signed a factual resume admitting participation in a scheme through a tax-preparation business (Tax on the Run) to file false returns and cash refunds; he affirmed the plea was voluntary under oath.
- More than five weeks later (and before a PSR), Harrison moved to withdraw his plea claiming actual innocence, coercion, and ineffective assistance, attaching later unsworn and sworn statements including a codefendant’s and his sister’s denials of his participation.
- The district court applied the Fifth Circuit’s seven‑factor Carr test, found Harrison’s unsupported assertions insufficient, noted prejudice to the government and judicial inconvenience, and denied the withdrawal motion without an evidentiary hearing.
- Harrison raised only the district court’s refusal to hold an evidentiary hearing on appeal; the Fifth Circuit allowed the appeal despite the plea waiver because Harrison reserved challenges to voluntariness and ineffective assistance.
Issues
| Issue | Harrison's Argument | Government/District Court Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Harrison may appeal despite plea‑waiver | Waiver involuntary; reserved right to challenge voluntariness and ineffective assistance so appeal permissible | Waiver bars appeal unless reservation applies | Allowed appeal; reservation covered these claims |
| Whether evidentiary hearing was required on plea‑withdrawal motion | Facts alleged (actual innocence, coercion, ineffective assistance) warranted hearing | Allegations unsupported, contradicted by plea colloquy and record; Carr factors not met | No abuse of discretion in denying a hearing |
| Whether actual innocence claim justified withdrawal | Asserts he resigned before scheme and did not participate; attached statements and affidavit | Assertions unsupported or not inconsistent with record (e.g., conduct outside office) | Insufficient; bare assertions cannot automatically justify withdrawal |
| Whether plea was involuntary due to a package/coercive deal | Argues he was pressured to plead to protect brothers (package plea) | Plea agreement and supplement contained no package condition; he answered under oath that plea was voluntary | No evidence of coercive package deal; voluntariness upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Carr, 740 F.2d 339 (5th Cir. 1984) (sets seven‑factor test for post‑acceptance plea withdrawal)
- United States v. Keele, 755 F.3d 752 (5th Cir. 2014) (two‑step inquiry on validity of appeal waivers)
- United States v. Bond, 414 F.3d 542 (5th Cir. 2005) (contract principles in construing appeal waivers)
- United States v. Lampazianie, 251 F.3d 519 (5th Cir. 2001) (plea colloquy statements create strong presumption of voluntariness)
- United States v. Powell, 354 F.3d 362 (5th Cir. 2003) (hearing required only if defendant alleges sufficient facts that, if proven, would justify relief)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)