Filed: Nov. 25, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Opinions of the United 2002 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 11-25-2002 USA v. Matvia Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 01-3874 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2002 Recommended Citation "USA v. Matvia" (2002). 2002 Decisions. Paper 768. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2002/768 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United State
Summary: Opinions of the United 2002 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 11-25-2002 USA v. Matvia Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 01-3874 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2002 Recommended Citation "USA v. Matvia" (2002). 2002 Decisions. Paper 768. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2002/768 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States..
More
Opinions of the United
2002 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
11-25-2002
USA v. Matvia
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 01-3874
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2002
Recommended Citation
"USA v. Matvia" (2002). 2002 Decisions. Paper 768.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2002/768
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2002 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
__________
No. 01-3874
__________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
JOHN MICHAEL MATVIA,
Appellant
__________
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
(D.C. Crim. No. 01-cr-00072-1)
District Judge: The Honorable James F. McClure, Jr.
__________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
November 20, 2002
__________
Before: BARRY, AMBRO, Circuit Judges, and ACKERMAN,* District Judge
(Opinion Filed: November 25, 2002)
____________
OPINION
____________
*
The Honorable Harold A. Ackerman, United States District Judge for the District of
New Jersey, sitting by designation.
BARRY, Circuit Judge
We need not discuss this case in other than barebones fashion because there is
nothing in dispute between the parties, including the relief that should be granted. We
agree that the requested relief is appropriate and, accordingly, will vacate the sentence
imposed and, as the United States puts it, “remand the case to the district court to let Matvia
rethink his guilty plea, this time with help from a new lawyer.” Appellee’s Br. at 9. As it
also notes, while it believes that it “has a tenable argument based on the implications of the
record” and while it recognizes that “the district court’s predicament was unusually
challenging in this case,” there is, in its view, enough to Matvia’s claim to confess error and
join him in the prayer for relief. Id. at 8-9. We applaud the United States for having taken
this principled position.
The facts are not in dispute and we quote verbatim the relevant portions of the
United States’ statement of those facts.
[T]he appellant, John Michael Matvia, suffers from a personality
disorder. In April, 2002, he was charged with threatening a federal judge
under Title 18, United States Code, Section 115, and was represented by
appointed counsel. He entered a guilty plea to that charge and, while the case
was pending imposition of sentence, wrote to the district court complaining
about defense counsel’s performance and implicitly casting doubt on the
advisability of his guilty plea in view of the perceived ineffectiveness of
appointed counsel in exploring and preparing possible defenses. The court
treated the letters as a motion to discharge appointed counsel and to withdraw
the guilty plea.
On the date first set for the sentencing hearing, the district court held
an ex parte hearing with the defendant and the same appointed counsel Matvia
had complained about in his letter. After hearing from Matvia and his
counsel, the district judge denied the motion to withdraw the plea and
2
allowed appointed counsel to continue her representation of the defendant.
Appellee’s Br. at 5.
It is important to note that although counsel denied Matvia’s accusations and had not
sought to withdraw, she made it quite clear that a conflict of interest would exist, and new
counsel required, were the Court to construe Matvia’s motion, as it did, as a motion to
withdraw his plea based on those accusations. But nothing in the record indicates that the
Court considered the potential conflict much less sought to appoint new counsel to assist
Matvia in his motion to withdraw his plea. As Matvia argues here, he was essentially
unrepresented given that counsel was defending herself and her conduct at the hearing, and
not him; indeed, counsel was conflicted once Matvia cited her supposed failures to defend
him vigorously as his reason for seeking to withdraw his plea. Immediately upon the denial
of his motion, Matvia was sentenced to a probationary term of five years. We appointed
new counsel on appeal.
We need not reprise the well established caselaw the parties have cited in their
submissions to us. Suffice it to say that this appeal is predicated on the ground that the
District Court ignored a conflict of interest that should have been addressed with the
appointment of new counsel, perhaps only for purposes of the motion to withdraw the plea.
Under the unusual circumstances of this case, the government’s confession of error was
warranted. We will grant the parties’ request to vacate the sentence and remand the case for
the District Court to appoint counsel to assist Matvia in considering his decision to abide
by or to move to withdraw his guilty plea. If he decides to abide by his guilty plea or files
3
an unsuccessful motion to withdraw that plea, it will be necessary for the District Court to
reimpose sentence. If he files a motion to withdraw his guilty plea which is granted, he can
replead or go to trial.
TO THE CLERK OF THE COURT:
Kindly file the foregoing Opinion.
/s/ Maryanne Trump Barry
Circuit Judge
4
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
__________
No. 01-3874
__________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
JOHN MICHAEL MATVIA,
Appellant
__________
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
(D.C. Crim. No. 01-cr-00072-1)
District Judge: The Honorable James F. McClure, Jr.
__________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
November 20, 2002
__________
Before: BARRY, AMBRO, Circuit Judges, and ACKERMAN,* District Judge
____________
JUDGMENT
____________
This cause came on to be heard on the record from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania and was submitted on November 20, 2002.
On consideration whereof, it is now here ordered and adjudged by this Court that the
*
The Honorable Harold A. Ackerman, United States District Judge for the District of
New Jersey, sitting by designation.
judgment of sentence of October 10, 2001 is vacated and the case is remanded for
proceedings in accordance with this Opinion.
ATTEST:
_______________________
Acting Clerk
Dated: 25 November 2002
2
