United States v. Lowell Baisden
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 8487
| 8th Cir. | 2013Background
- Baisden pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting tax evasion under a plea agreement that dismissed three counts of the indictment.
- Two days before sentencing, his court-appointed counsel Vanderslice sought to withdraw after a breakdown in the relationship; Baisden did not oppose the withdrawal but claimed reliance on bad advice.
- The plea agreement contained waivers and stated Baisden had discussed it with counsel and understood its meaning; it also indicated no guarantee of sentencing outcome.
- At the plea hearing, Baisden and the court conducted extensive colloquies confirming his understanding, satisfaction with counsel, and lack of promises of leniency.
- Before sentencing, Vanderslice and a second attorney counseled after an in camera hearing; the PSR calculated an offense level of 30, later adjusted to 23 by stipulations, with a guideline range of 46–57 months.
- The district court imposed a 37-month sentence with three years of supervised release after ruling on the motion to withdraw and applying a variance; Baisden appealed the denial of new counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the denial of substitute counsel an abuse of discretion? | Baisden argues justifiable dissatisfaction due to counsel's breakdown and failures. | Court properly balanced interests and found no irreconcilable conflict or breakdown in representation. | No abuse; denial proper. |
| Did Vanderslice's conduct violate the Sixth Amendment right to counsel of choice? | Dissatisfaction with Vanderslice due to conflict and alleged lack of loyalty violated the right. | Record supports effective representation and no constitutional violation. | No Sixth Amendment violation. |
| Did the attempted withdrawal of the guilty plea have merit affecting the case? | Relied on counsel to obtain a fair withdrawal; plea should be withdrawn. | No factual or legal basis to withdraw plea; plea valid. | Plea withdrawal not warranted; plea valid. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Barrow, 287 F.3d 733 (8th Cir. 2002) (abuse of discretion standard for new counsel)
- United States v. Swinney, 970 F.2d 494 (8th Cir. 1992) (justifiable dissatisfaction limits right to substitute counsel)
- Hunter v. Delo, 62 F.3d 271 (8th Cir. 1995) (irreconcilable conflict or breakdown in communication supports new counsel)
- United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 U.S. 140 (U.S. 2006) (structural error; right to counsel is fundamental and not harmless)