United States v. John Moore, Jr.
681 F. App'x 241
| 4th Cir. | 2017Background
- John Moore Jr. pleaded guilty in April 2013 to one count of possession of child pornography after FBI seized images from his computer; his initial Rule 11 colloquy included equivocal statements about guilt.
- Moore later alleged his original counsel (Bell) pressured him to plead guilty and had a conflict of interest; Bell withdrew and new counsel (Forrester) was appointed.
- Moore moved (over a year after the plea) to withdraw his guilty plea; the district court held four hearings, ordered a competency evaluation, heard testimony, and denied the motion after applying the Moore factors.
- At sentencing, Moore repeatedly professed innocence while saying he accepted responsibility; the district court introduced and then accepted an Alford plea, explaining that Alford pleas typically preclude an acceptance-of-responsibility reduction.
- The presentence report and the district court denied a reduction for acceptance of responsibility because Moore refused the presentence interview, failed to complete forms, and continued to equivocate about guilt; Moore was sentenced to 108 months (bottom of the Guidelines range).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Moore) | Defendant's Argument (Government / District Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court impermissibly participated in plea negotiations by suggesting/arranging an Alford plea | Court improperly intervened in plea negotiations in violation of Rule 11(c)(1), coercing or influencing plea choice | Any judicial participation did not affect Moore’s substantial rights because he had already pleaded guilty and the guilty plea would stand | Affirmed — plain error standard not met; Moore cannot show reasonable probability he would have gone to trial absent the court’s comments |
| Whether Moore was entitled to withdraw his original guilty plea | Plea was involuntary due to counsel pressure and conflict; therefore withdrawal warranted | Plea was knowing and voluntary per thorough Rule 11 colloquy and Bell’s credible testimony; no fair and just reason to withdraw | Affirmed — district court did not abuse discretion in denying motion to withdraw |
| Whether Moore received ineffective assistance from Bell during the original plea | Counsel pressured him and failed to protect rights (e.g., suppression motion) | District court found Bell credible and competent; ineffective assistance not evident on record | Dismissed on direct appeal — claim should be raised in §2255 unless conclusively shown on record |
| Whether denial of acceptance-of-responsibility credit was improper | Court’s suggestion of an Alford plea caused loss of acceptance credit and increased sentence | Moore was ineligible for the reduction before court raised Alford due to refusal of PSR interview and ongoing equivocation | Affirmed — no reasonable probability Moore could have obtained reduction regardless of Alford plea |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Davis, 679 F.3d 177 (4th Cir.) (discussing Alford pleas)
- United States v. Moore, 931 F.2d 245 (4th Cir. 1991) (factors for withdrawing guilty plea)
- United States v. Nicholson, 676 F.3d 376 (4th Cir.) (importance of Rule 11 colloquy in plea-withdrawal analysis)
- United States v. Sanya, 774 F.3d 812 (4th Cir.) (Rule 11 prohibition on judicial participation in plea negotiations; plain-error review)
- United States v. Braxton, 784 F.3d 240 (4th Cir.) (judicial comments crossing line into improper participation)
- United States v. Benton, 523 F.3d 424 (4th Cir.) (ineffective-assistance claims not resolved on direct appeal absent conclusively on-record evidence)
- United States v. King, 119 F.3d 290 (4th Cir.) (§2255 as proper vehicle for ineffective-assistance claims)