United States v. Jerry Lee Jordan
693 F. App'x 864
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant Jerry Lee Jordan pleaded guilty to conspiracy and aggravated identity theft and later moved to withdraw his guilty plea.
- Jordan argued his plea was not knowing and voluntary; he sought vacatur of the plea before the district court.
- The district court denied the motion to withdraw the guilty plea; Jordan appealed that denial.
- Record shows counsel explained charges, Jordan stated satisfaction with counsel, and he discussed the plea agreement with counsel.
- At the plea hearing the court reviewed the elements, resolved Jordan’s confusion about the aggravated identity theft charge, and Jordan repeatedly confirmed his desire to plead guilty and that he understood the agreement.
- The appeal waiver in Jordan’s plea agreement bars his challenge to the sentence; the panel focused on whether the plea was knowing and voluntary.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying motion to withdraw guilty plea | Jordan: plea was not knowing and voluntary, so he should be allowed to withdraw | Government/District Court: plea was knowing and voluntary; Jordan received close assistance of counsel | Denial affirmed — no abuse of discretion; Jordan failed to show a fair and just reason to withdraw plea |
| Whether plea entry was knowing and voluntary | Jordan: confusion about aggravated identity theft shows lack of understanding | Record: court explained elements, counsel and government clarified facts; Jordan affirmed understanding | Court found plea knowingly and voluntarily entered |
| Whether counsel provided close and adequate assistance | Jordan: implied ineffective/insufficient explanation | Record: counsel thoroughly explained charges; Jordan expressed satisfaction with counsel | Court concluded assistance was close and adequate |
| Whether appeal waiver excludes sentence challenge | Jordan: challenged sentence on appeal | Government: appeal waiver in plea bars sentence challenge | Panel held waiver valid because plea was knowing and voluntary; sentence challenge barred |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Brehm, 442 F.3d 1291 (11th Cir. 2006) (standard of review and credibility for plea-withdrawal motions)
- United States v. Izquierdo, 448 F.3d 1269 (11th Cir. 2006) (district court abuses discretion if denial is arbitrary or unreasonable)
- United States v. Buckles, 843 F.2d 469 (11th Cir. 1988) (multifactor test for plea-withdrawal motions)
- United States v. Gonzalez-Mercado, 808 F.2d 796 (11th Cir. 1987) (no abuse where defendant received close counsel and plea was knowing and voluntary)
- United States v. DiFalco, 837 F.3d 1207 (11th Cir. 2016) (valid knowing and voluntary plea sustains an appeal waiver)