United States v. Kristopher Hatch
696 F. App'x 756
8th Cir.2017Background
- Kristopher Hatch pled guilty under a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) agreement to (1) conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and (2) being a felon in possession of a firearm; the agreement stipulated a 151-month sentence.
- The PSR applied career-offender and ACCA/armed-career-offender enhancements that could produce a higher Guidelines range and a 15-year mandatory minimum.
- Hatch moved to withdraw his plea, initially asserting the plea had been nullified after the ACCA issue arose; the government conceded it had been unaware of ACCA applicability when the plea was made.
- The district court found the ACCA enhancement did not apply, proceeded under the plea, and denied Hatch’s subsequent pro se and counseled motions to withdraw the plea as failing to show ineffective assistance or a fair and just reason.
- At sentencing the court accepted the agreed 151-month term; Hatch renewed claims of ineffective assistance, disputed drug-quantity and ownership facts, and alleged government bad faith.
- The Eighth Circuit reviewed the denial of the motion to withdraw for abuse of discretion and affirmed, finding Hatch failed to show deficient performance or prejudice and lacked a fair and just reason to withdraw.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hatch showed a "fair and just" reason to withdraw his guilty plea under Rule 11(d)(2)(B) | Hatch argued counsel was ineffective, plea was unfair, and factual/PSR errors justified withdrawal | Government and district court argued Hatch had admitted factual basis, was satisfied with counsel at plea, and plea produced a below-Guidelines sentence | Denied — Hatch failed to meet burden to show fair and just reason; no abuse of discretion |
| Whether Hatch received ineffective assistance of counsel sufficient to justify withdrawal | Counsel allegedly lied, failed to raise defenses, and miscalculated Guidelines leading to plea unfairness | Record shows Hatch affirmed satisfaction with counsel at change-of-plea; magistrate’s colloquy undermined later claims | Denied — Hatch’s in-court assurances and record refute deficient performance and prejudice |
| Whether alleged PSR errors and disputed drug-quantity/ownership facts warrant plea withdrawal | Hatch contested drug-quantity attribution and ownership of the residence where the weapon was found | Court noted Hatch admitted factual basis at plea and even credited disputes would still yield a Guidelines range above 151 months | Denied — substantive disputes do not establish fair and just reason to withdraw |
| Whether the government acted in bad faith by attempting to "nullify" the plea after ACCA issues arose | Hatch claimed the government tried to void the plea after PSR indicated ACCA applicability | Plea was entered before the government raised ACCA; district court found ACCA did not apply and government did not nullify the agreement | Denied — no bearing on the plea; no bad-faith nullification found |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Van Doren, 800 F.3d 998 (8th Cir.) (standard for plea-withdrawal is liberal but not automatic)
- United States v. Heid, 651 F.3d 850 (8th Cir.) (defendant has no automatic right to withdraw plea)
- United States v. Haubrich, 744 F.3d 554 (8th Cir.) (ineffective-assistance can be a fair-and-just reason if performance is deficient and prejudicial)
- United States v. Briggs, 820 F.3d 917 (8th Cir.) (denial of motion to withdraw plea reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- United States v. Scurlark, 560 F.3d 839 (8th Cir.) (Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea binds the court if accepted)
- United States v. Hughes, 16 F.3d 949 (8th Cir.) (failure to object at plea hearing undermines later ineffective-assistance claims)