United States v. Muhammad
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 6496
| 10th Cir. | 2014Background
- Sevgi Muhammad, a Turkish immigrant, was indicted for mail fraud, false statements, and stealing public money for receiving HUD housing subsidies based on false income statements; she pleaded no contest to one count of making a false statement.
- The written plea form was a guilty-plea form modified by handwriting to reflect a no-contest plea; it stated the government would dismiss other counts "upon acceptance of plea & finding of guilt."
- At the plea colloquy Muhammad said she understood the indictment and rights waived; two Turkish interpreters were present and the court accepted the no-contest plea and announced a finding of guilt.
- At sentencing Muhammad moved to withdraw her plea claiming she did not understand that a no-contest plea would result in a finding of guilt or a felony conviction and that her counsel and interpreters had not fully explained the petition.
- At an evidentiary hearing the defense attorney testified he told her a no-contest plea would produce a finding of guilt; interpreter testimony was mixed about whether legal terms (like "no contest") were fully explained; the court found the plea knowing and voluntary.
- The district court denied withdrawal under the Rule 11 standard; the Tenth Circuit affirmed, holding collateral consequences need not be explained and the record showed Muhammad understood the plea produced a finding of guilt.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a plea is invalid for failure to advise of collateral consequences | N/A (court assesses validity) | Muhammad: plea invalid because she was not told of collateral consequences (felony record, loss of benefits, firearm disqualification, impeachment) | Held: Collateral consequences need not be explained for a plea to be knowing and voluntary; plea valid |
| Whether Muhammad knew a no-contest plea would result in a finding of guilt | N/A | Muhammad: did not understand no-contest equals a guilty finding; counsel/interpreters failed to explain | Held: Evidence (counsel testimony, plea form, court colloquy) shows she was informed; plea was knowing and voluntary |
| Whether motion to withdraw plea should be granted pre-sentencing under Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(d)(2)(B) | Muhammad: asserted innocence and sought withdrawal as plea not knowing | Government: no fair and just reason; factors favor denying withdrawal | Held: District court did not abuse discretion; no fair and just reason to permit withdrawal |
| Standard for review of plea validity and withdrawal denial | N/A | N/A | Held: Plea validity legal question reviewed de novo with factual findings for clear error; withdrawal denial reviewed for abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742 (1970) (valid guilty plea requires awareness of direct consequences; excludes collateral consequences)
- United States v. Krejcarek, 453 F.3d 1290 (10th Cir. 2006) (no requirement to advise defendant of collateral consequences for plea to be knowing)
- United States v. Dunbar, 718 F.3d 1268 (10th Cir. 2013) (standard for voluntary and intelligent guilty plea)
- United States v. Garcia, 577 F.3d 1271 (10th Cir. 2009) (seven-factor test for pre-sentencing withdrawal of plea)
- United States v. Nicholson, 676 F.3d 376 (4th Cir. 2012) (loss of federal benefits is a collateral consequence)
- Kratt v. Garvey, 342 F.3d 475 (6th Cir. 2003) (revocation of professional license is collateral consequence)
- United States v. Campusano, 947 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1991) (use of guilty plea in other proceedings is collateral consequence)
- United States v. Youngs, 687 F.3d 56 (2d Cir. 2012) (possibility of civil commitment is collateral consequence)