United States v. Maurice Dupree Starnes
708 F. App'x 102
| 4th Cir. | 2017Background
- Maurice Dupree Starnes pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to two federal drug offenses.
- At the Rule 11 plea hearing Starnes admitted involvement in a drug conspiracy and possession offense and agreed with the Government’s factual basis, which included specified drug quantities.
- Starnes later challenged the truth of co-defendants’ statements and the sufficiency of the factual basis supporting his plea.
- Starnes argued the Government should have moved for a downward departure and that his sentence (108 months on each count, concurrent) was excessive; he also sought a downward variance based on personal history.
- He asserted ineffective assistance of counsel for allegedly not reviewing evidence with him, not explaining the plea, and failing to move to suppress evidence.
- The district court accepted the plea, calculated the Guidelines range, imposed the low-end Guidelines sentence, and denied a downward variance; the Fourth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Starnes' Argument | Government/District Court Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of factual basis for guilty plea | Plea lacked sufficient factual basis; co-defendants’ statements unreliable | Plea colloquy and written factual basis (including other evidence and stipulated drug quantities) were sufficient | Court: No abuse of discretion; sufficient factual basis existed |
| Government motion for downward departure | Government should have moved to reduce sentence | Government had no contractual obligation in plea and did not act from unconstitutional motive | Court: No relief; Government not required to move absent contract or unconstitutional motive |
| Procedural and substantive reasonableness of sentence / denial of downward variance | Sentence too high; district should have granted downward variance for lack of history and personal hardships | Court correctly calculated Guidelines, considered §3553(a) factors, explained sentence, and found seriousness/duration of offense warranted no variance | Court: Sentence procedurally and substantively reasonable; variance denial upheld |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | Counsel failed to review evidence with him, inadequately explained plea, and failed to move to suppress | Record does not conclusively show ineffectiveness on its face | Court: Declined to consider ineffective-assistance claim on direct appeal; not conclusively shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (procedures for counsel who finds appeal frivolous)
- United States v. Ketchum, 550 F.3d 363 (4th Cir. 2008) (standard for reviewing factual basis for plea)
- United States v. Mitchell, 104 F.3d 649 (4th Cir. 1997) (district court need only be subjectively satisfied factual basis exists)
- United States v. Conner, 930 F.2d 1073 (4th Cir. 1991) (Government obligation to move for departure only if in plea agreement)
- Wade v. United States, 504 U.S. 181 (U.S. 1992) (Government refusal to move must not be based on unconstitutional motive)
- United States v. Howard, 773 F.3d 519 (4th Cir. 2014) (abuse-of-discretion review for sentencing reasonableness)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (U.S. 2007) (procedural and substantive review framework for sentences)
- United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325 (4th Cir. 2009) (consideration of substantive reasonableness only after procedural reasonableness)
- United States v. Adepoju, 756 F.3d 250 (4th Cir. 2014) (standard for reviewing sentencing enhancements)
- United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295 (4th Cir. 2014) (presumption of reasonableness for within-Guidelines sentences)
- United States v. Davis, 855 F.3d 587 (4th Cir. 2017) (denial of downward variance considered in substantive-reasonableness review)
- United States v. Faulls, 821 F.3d 502 (4th Cir. 2016) (ineffective-assistance claims not considered on direct appeal unless conclusively shown)