United States v. Sarah Carter
688 F. App'x 595
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Sarah Carter and codefendants indicted for drug offenses; Carter pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine/cocaine base pursuant to a plea agreement.
- Carter retained Kimberly Copeland; during Copeland’s six-month suspension James Hardin represented Carter at the plea hearing; Copeland later rejoined representation.
- The plea agreement contained contradictory drug-quantity figures (5–15 kg in one section; 50–150 kg in another); Carter signed the agreement and affirmed at a Rule 11 colloquy that she understood the plea and potential penalties (statutory range 5–40 years).
- Carter moved to withdraw her guilty plea and later to rescind the plea agreement, claiming she believed she would receive a 5-year sentence, that she lacked a copy of the agreement at the colloquy, and that interim counsel Hardin was ineffective.
- The district court held multiple hearings, found Carter’s plea knowing and voluntary, denied withdrawal and rescission motions, rejected the ineffective-assistance claim, and sentenced Carter to 155 months’ imprisonment.
- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed: no abuse of discretion in denying withdrawal or rescission, no ineffective assistance, and no plain error under Rule 11 in the court’s post-plea comments.
Issues
| Issue | Carter's Argument | Government/District Court Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court abused discretion by denying motion to withdraw plea | Plea not knowing/voluntary because counsel misled her to expect a 5-year sentence and she lacked a copy of the plea agreement pre-colloquy | Carter testified at colloquy she understood the agreement and penalties; credibility and plea responses are presumptively truthful | Denied — no abuse of discretion; plea was knowing and voluntary |
| Whether plea agreement should be rescinded for lack of meeting of the minds | Typographical errors and ambiguities (quantity, phrasing about "maximum"/"not less than five") showed no mutual assent | Parties and court understood the true terms; errors were typographical and Carter showed no confusion at colloquy | Denied — no rescission; court will not rewrite agreement |
| Whether interim counsel (Hardin) provided ineffective assistance | Counsel did not sufficiently consult, met only an hour before plea, misadvised sentence, and failed to provide documents | District court found counsel adequately reviewed agreement with Carter and her plea answers showed satisfaction with counsel | Denied — no ineffective assistance under Strickland/Hill; record insufficient to show deficiency or prejudice |
| Whether district court’s post-plea comments about harsher sentences violated Rule 11(c)(1) | Court’s comments coerced decision to proceed and deprived Carter of right to fair plea discussions | Comments were clarifying risks of withdrawing plea after colloquy; Carter still wanted to plead guilty; plain-error standard not met | Denied — no plain error; comments did not affect Carter’s substantial rights |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Freixas, 332 F.3d 1314 (11th Cir. 2003) (standard of review and factors for Rule 11(d)(2)(B) withdrawal motions)
- United States v. Buckles, 843 F.2d 469 (11th Cir. 1988) (defendant bears burden to show fair and just reason to withdraw plea)
- United States v. Gonzalez-Mercado, 808 F.2d 796 (11th Cir. 1987) (a swift change of heart suggests haste and confusion in pleading)
- United States v. Medlock, 12 F.3d 185 (11th Cir. 1994) (plea colloquy answers are presumed truthful)
- United States v. Pease, 240 F.3d 938 (11th Cir. 2001) (attorney’s erroneous estimate of sentence does not necessarily warrant plea withdrawal)
- United States v. Jeffries, 908 F.2d 1520 (11th Cir. 1990) (plea agreements interpreted under contract principles)
- United States v. Howle, 166 F.3d 1166 (11th Cir. 1999) (district court lacks power to modify terms of an accepted plea agreement)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (U.S. 1985) (prejudice standard for ineffective assistance claims involving guilty pleas)
- United States v. Castro, 736 F.3d 1308 (11th Cir. 2013) (plain-error review for unpreserved Rule 11 violations)