United States v. Lytle, 5:17-cr-50020

Defendant Robert Larry Lytle pleaded guilty pursuant to a written plea agreement to criminal contempt (18 U.S.C. § 401(3)), conspiracy to introduce misbranded medical devices (18 U.S.C. § 371; 21 U.S.C. §§ 331, 333(a)(2)), and related forfeiture; plea reserved restitution issues.
After plea, Lytle moved to withdraw his guilty plea (initial motion), asserting 11 grounds including ineffective assistance of his privately retained counsel; the Court denied that motion pre‑sentence.
Lytle was sentenced (60 months for conspiracy; 84 months consecutive for contempt), filed a notice of appeal, changed counsel, and postponed restitution proceedings.
With new CJA counsel, Lytle filed a renewed motion to withdraw his plea, again alleging ineffective assistance, coercion/pressure, and that he did not read or fully understand the plea agreement.
The Court reviewed the Rule 11 colloquy and plea agreement, found Lytle’s courtroom admissions contradicted his new allegations, and concluded the ineffective‑assistance and coercion claims lacked merit on the record.
The Court denied the renewed motion without prejudice to a § 2255 motion and directed the clerk to send § 2255 materials to Lytle.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether ineffective assistance of retained counsel supplies a "fair and just" reason to withdraw plea	Govt: Defendant fails to show deficient performance and prejudice on the record; IAC usually litigated under § 2255	Lytle: Counsel pressured him, misinformed him about rights, sentence, and restitution; he did not read plea	Denied; court finds allegations contradicted by Rule 11 colloquy and written plea; better raised in § 2255
Whether plea was involuntary/coerced	Govt: Rule 11 colloquy shows plea was knowing and voluntary	Lytle: Signed and pled under pressure/duress from attorney	Denied; sworn answers at change‑of‑plea establish voluntariness
Whether counsel failed to preserve appeal/trial rights via conditional plea	Govt: Government would not accept conditional plea preserving jury/appeal rights; defendant was informed of waiver	Lytle: Would not have waived right to challenge indictment	Denied; plea waiver and Court's advisement contradict claim
Whether misunderstanding about sentence/restitution justifies withdrawal	Govt: Plea agreement and colloquy disclosed maximum penalties and restitution acknowledgment	Lytle: Misinformed about sentencing and restitution; did not read plea	Denied; written plea and Rule 11 colloquy show understanding

United States v. Arafat, 789 F.3d 839 (8th Cir.) (Rule 11(d)(2)(B) standard: fair and just reason to withdraw plea)
United States v. Sharp, 879 F.3d 327 (8th Cir.) (defendant bears burden to establish fair and just reason)
United States v. Briggs, 820 F.3d 917 (8th Cir.) (guilty plea is solemn act not set aside lightly)
United States v. McHenry, 849 F.3d 699 (8th Cir.) (court considers innocence, timing, and government prejudice)
United States v. Norvell, 729 F.3d 788 (8th Cir.) (IAC must show deficiency and prejudice to justify plea withdrawal)
United States v. Ramirez‑Hernandez, 449 F.3d 824 (8th Cir.) (IAC claims often better suited for collateral § 2255 proceedings)
United States v. McMullen, 86 F.3d 135 (8th Cir.) (IAC elements in plea withdrawal context)
United States v. Trevino, 829 F.3d 668 (8th Cir.) (Rule 11 colloquy can plainly contradict later withdrawal claims)
United States v. Cruz, 643 F.3d 639 (8th Cir.) (deference to valid Rule 11 colloquy)
United States v. Green, 521 F.3d 929 (8th Cir.) (colloquy evidence of knowing, voluntary plea)
United States v. Smith, 422 F.3d 715 (8th Cir.) (government consent required for conditional plea)
United States v. Austin, 413 F.3d 856 (8th Cir.) (district court inquiry into defendant’s understanding is controlling)