24 F.4th 870
2d Cir.2022Background
- Overton pleaded guilty on November 26, 2018 under a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement that stipulated a 90–213 month sentence; the district court "provisionally accepted" the plea and scheduled sentencing.
- After plea, Overton learned the government produced post-plea agent interview notes that he claimed were Brady material and moved to withdraw his plea (asserting prosecutorial misconduct and withheld exculpatory evidence).
- The district court denied withdrawal under Rule 11(d)(2), finding no Brady violation, concluding the notes were not material, and weighing other withdrawal factors (delay, lack of credible innocence claim, government prejudice).
- The court sentenced Overton to 90 months’ imprisonment; Overton appealed arguing (1) the court never accepted his plea so Rule 11(d)(1) should apply, (2) the withheld notes were Brady material justifying withdrawal, and (3) ineffective assistance of counsel in litigating withdrawal.
- The Second Circuit reviewed whether acceptance of a guilty plea is reviewed de novo and whether the court’s "provisional" language constituted acceptance; it affirmed the district court on all counts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (United States) | Defendant's Argument (Overton) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard of review for whether a district court "accepted" a plea | De novo review is appropriate for the antecedent legal question | N/A (Overton urged reversal but did not contest standard below) | De novo review applies |
| Whether a "provisional" acceptance at plea allocution constitutes acceptance under Rule 11 | A full Rule 11 colloquy plus provisional acceptance (pending PSR/sentence review) constitutes acceptance | "Provisional" language meant no acceptance had occurred, so Rule 11(d)(1) should allow unconditional withdrawal | The record shows the court accepted the plea (despite word "provisional"); Rule 11(d)(2) governs withdrawal |
| Whether the government committed a Brady violation by not producing agent interview notes pre-plea | Notes were not material and did not undermine the strong evidence against Overton | Notes were exculpatory and material; had they been produced Overton would have insisted on trial | No Brady violation; notes not material to the plea decision; district court correctly applied objective materiality standard |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel in litigating plea withdrawal | Counsel was adequate; any errors did not prejudice Overton | Counsel failed to press Rule 11(d)(1) and Brady arguments below, causing prejudice | Claim fails for lack of prejudice because underlying Rule 11(d) and Brady arguments fail |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Hyde, 520 U.S. 670 (1997) (a court may accept a guilty plea while deferring acceptance of a plea agreement)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecutor must disclose material exculpatory evidence)
- United States v. Ruiz, 536 U.S. 622 (2002) (limits on pre-plea disclosure obligations in the plea context)
- United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74 (2004) (standards for Rule 11 error and prejudice in plea colloquies)
- United States v. Avellino, 136 F.3d 249 (2d Cir. 1998) (Brady materiality standard applied pre-plea)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong ineffective-assistance standard)
- United States v. Byrum, 567 F.3d 1255 (10th Cir. 2009) (provisional acceptance after full Rule 11 colloquy can constitute acceptance)
- United States v. Battle, 499 F.3d 315 (4th Cir. 2007) (same conclusion regarding provisional acceptance)
- United States v. Jones, 472 F.3d 905 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (applies de novo review to whether plea was accepted)