United States v. Wynn
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 24800
| 6th Cir. | 2011Background
- Wynn pleaded guilty to conspiracy to launder monetary instruments in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956.
- District court denied Wynn's motion to withdraw his guilty plea and sentenced him to 63 months in prison.
- Wynn appeals alleging the district court abused its discretion in denying withdrawal and that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance.
- Standard of review for denying withdrawal of a guilty plea is abuse of discretion under Rule 11(d).
- Court applies the seven-factor test from Bashara to determine whether a fair and just reason exists to withdraw a plea.
- Court concludes Wynn failed to show a fair and just reason; factors largely weigh against withdrawal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying withdrawal of the plea | Wynn argues the denial was improper given fair and just reasons. | Government contends factors support denial and no fair and just reason exists. | No abuse; denial affirmed based on Bashara factors. |
| Whether Wynn's trial counsel was ineffective for exculpatory evidence, plea explanation, and money amount advice | Wynn asserts counsel failed to obtain exculpatory evidence and misadvised on the plea. | Government contends no prejudice; counsel reviewed plea and advised reasonably. | No Strickland prejudice; claims fail on prejudice or reasonableness. |
| Whether Wynn's ineffective-assistance claim regarding vindictive prosecution warrants relief | Wynn claims counsel should have moved to dismiss for vindictiveness. | Government argues no unreasonable prosecutorial conduct and no reasonable likelihood of prejudice. | No Strickland prejudice; vindictiveness claim rejected. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Bashara, 27 F.3d 1174 (6th Cir.1994) (seven-factor test for withdrawal of guilty plea)
- United States v. Benton, 639 F.3d 723 (6th Cir.2011) (abuse-of-discretion review for withdrawal of plea)
- United States v. Alexander, 948 F.2d 1002 (6th Cir.1991) (tactical delay in seeking withdrawal discouraged)
- Griffin v. United States, 330 F.3d 733 (6th Cir.2003) (duty to inform defendant of plea offers; prejudice not required for failure to inform)
- Johnson v. Duckworth, 793 F.2d 898 (7th Cir.1986) (right to be informed about plea agreement)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985) (standard for evaluating guilty-plea decisions with ineffective-assistance context)
- Rompilla v. Beard, 545 U.S. 374 (2005) (Strickland standard applied to guilty-plea contexts)
- United States v. Moon, 513 F.3d 527 (6th Cir.2008) (vindictiveness must show prosecutor's unreasonable conduct)
- United States v. Fortson, 194 F.3d 730 (6th Cir.1999) (factfinding not always required where record sufficiently develops claims)
- United States v. Pluta, 144 F.3d 968 (6th Cir.1998) (delay factors in withdrawal of guilty plea)
- Pough v. United States, 442 F.3d 959 (6th Cir.2006) (reasonable plea offer evaluation supports reasonable defense strategy)
- Avery v. Prelesnik, 548 F.3d 434 (6th Cir.2008) (duty to investigate; prejudice prong may be determinative)
- United States v. Gardner, 417 F.3d 541 (6th Cir.2005) (ineffective-assistance claims generally not reviewed on direct appeal)