Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Marshall, 94-1724 (1995)

Court: Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Number: 94-1724 Visitors: 7
Filed: Jan. 05, 1995
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: January 5, 1995 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT ____________________ No. 94-1724 UNITED STATES, Appellee, v. JAMES T. MARSHALL, Defendant, Appellant. accord, e.g., United States v. Gonzalez, 970, ______ ____ ______________ ________ F.2d 1095, 1100 (2d Cir.
USCA1 Opinion




January 5, 1995 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________


No. 94-1724

UNITED STATES,

Appellee,

v.

JAMES T. MARSHALL,

Defendant, Appellant.


____________________

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

[Hon. Mark L. Wolf, U.S. District Judge] ___________________

____________________

Before

Cyr, Circuit Judge, _____________
Bownes, Senior Circuit Judge, and ____________________
Stahl, Circuit Judge. _____________

____________________

James T. Marshall on brief pro se. _________________
Donald K. Stern, United States Attorney, and Mark W. Pearlstein, ________________ __________________
Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.


____________________

____________________


























Per Curiam. Defendant James Marshall appeals from __________

a district court order denying his motion under Fed. R. Crim.

P. 32(d) to withdraw his guilty plea. For the reasons that

follow, we affirm.

I.

Defendant was indicted on a single count of being a

felon in possession of a firearm--a charge that, due to his

lengthy criminal history, subjected him upon conviction to a

15-year mandatory minimum term of imprisonment. See 18 ___

U.S.C. 922(g), 924(e). Defendant was ordered detained

pending trial. Nine months later (following the discovery

that defendant was afflicted with the HIV virus), the

government and defendant reached a plea agreement providing

in part as follows: (1) defendant would plead guilty and

would assist the government in related criminal

investigations; (2) the government would recommend that he be

released pending sentencing; and (3) in the event that

defendant's cooperation (in the government's judgment)

constituted substantial assistance, the government would file

a motion under U.S.S.G. 5K1.1 for downward departure and

would recommend no further imprisonment. On June 24, 1993,

following a careful Rule 11 colloquy, the district court

accepted defendant's guilty plea and adopted the plea

agreement. Defendant was released on bail six days later.





-2-













Defendant failed to assist the government as promised--

despite being afforded numerous opportunities to do so, and

despite being specifically warned on several occasions that

he would lose the benefits of a 5K1.1 motion if his lack of

cooperation persisted. Accordingly, on March 28, 1994, three

days before sentencing was to occur, the government announced

that it would decline to move for a downward departure. The

court ended up postponing sentencing for several weeks to

enable defendant to review the presentence report, but it did

revoke bail on March 31 because of the mandatory sentence he

was then facing.

Six days later, defendant filed a pro se motion to

withdraw his plea, arguing that his counsel had provided

ineffective assistance in advising him to plead guilty. His

sole contention in this regard was that counsel, by failing

to review his file, had overlooked and otherwise failed to

pursue a viable justification defense. The court addressed

this motion on April 21 at the outset of the sentencing

hearing. In response to inquiries from the court, defendant

acknowledged that he and counsel had discussed a possible

justification defense prior to the change of plea, with the

latter advising him that it was unlikely to succeed. Counsel

confirmed this version of events, telling the court that a

justification defense had struck him as "thin" based on "the

documents provided"; he added, however, that the final choice



-3-













to plead guilty had been made by his client. The court found

that defendant had adduced no "fair and just reason" to

withdraw his plea, as required by Rule 32(d). It noted that,

far from having been ineffective, counsel had acted

responsibly by abandoning the "challenging" justification

defense and negotiating a "highly favorable" plea agreement.

The court denied the motion to withdraw and thereafter

imposed the 15-year mandatory sentence. Defendant now

appeals on a pro se basis.

II.

Defendant's challenge to the court's Rule 32(d) decision

requires little comment. We review such a ruling for abuse

of discretion. See, e.g., United States v. Gonzalez-Vazquez, ___ ____ _____________ ________________

34 F.3d 19, 22 (1st Cir. 1994). As explained in United ______

States v. Parrilla-Tirado, 22 F.3d 368 (1st Cir. 1994), the ______ _______________

exercise of discretion in this context depends on the

"overall situation" and rests "most prominently" on four

factors: (1) the plausibility of the reasons prompting the

requested change of plea; (2) the timing of the motion; (3)

the existence or nonexistence of an assertion of innocence;

and (4) whether the plea may appropriately be regarded as

involuntary, in derogation of the requirements of Rule 11, or

otherwise legally suspect.1 Id. at 371; accord, e.g., ___ ______ ____

____________________

1. If the balance of these factors weighs in the defendant's
favor, the court must also consider "any demonstrable
prejudice that will accrue to the government." Parrilla- _________

-4-













United States v. De Alba Pagan, 33 F.3d 125, 127 (1st Cir. _____________ ______________

1994).

In reverse order, we note that defendant has advanced no

challenge to the adequacy of the Rule 11 hearing. See, e.g., ___ ____

United States v. Austin, 948 F.2d 783, 787 (1st Cir. 1991) ______________ ______

("we have repeatedly found no abuse of discretion in denial

of [Rule] 32(d) motions where Rule 11 procedures were

assiduously followed"). Defendant's justification defense is

consistent with an assertion of innocence but, as noted

infra, is of dubious merit. The timing of the motion alone _____

would constitute a sufficient basis for denial under the

circumstances: the fact that it was filed over nine months

after the guilty plea, and only after the pronouncement that

defendant was again facing a mandatory 15-year sentence,

"cast[s] a long shadow over the legitimacy of his professed

reasons for seeking to change course."2 Parrilla-Tirado, 22 _______________

F.3d at 373; accord, e.g., United States v. Gonzalez, 970 ______ ____ ______________ ________

F.2d 1095, 1100 (2d Cir. 1992) (fact that defendant filed

32(d) motion "only after he learned that the Government would

not move for a downward departure" undercuts its

plausibility).




____________________

Tirado, 22 F.3d at 371. ______

2. Defendant has, at no time, questioned the propriety of
the government's refusal to file a 5K1.1 motion.

-5-













Finally, the justification defense now touted by

defendant was properly described as "thin" by defense

counsel.3 Even if it had been of somewhat greater heft,

counsel's advice to abandon such a tactic in favor of a plea

agreement affording defendant the opportunity to avoid a 15-

year prison term can hardly be thought unreasonable. And

during the Rule 11 colloquy defendant had pronounced himself

satisfied with counsel's performance. Given these factors,

the district court cannot be said to have abused its

discretion in finding no "fair and just reason" for a

withdrawal of defendant's plea.

____________________

3. Defendant claims that he was victim rather than culprit--
i.e., that he encountered two armed, unidentified men at the
door to his apartment; that a struggle ensued, during which
he managed to gain possession of one of their guns; and that
he then knocked on the doors of several adjacent apartments
screaming for help. In support, he points to the transcripts
of various "911" calls made by his neighbors over an eight-
minute span. Several of these callers reported spotting
(through their peepholes) a man in the hallway brandishing a
gun, and hearing him "yelling for help" and "saying someone's
trying to kill him."
None of these callers, however, mentioned seeing the two
alleged intruders. More important, other evidence suggested
that defendant failed to get rid of the firearm as soon as a
safe opportunity arose--an essential element of a
justification defense. See, e.g., United States v. Smith, ___ ____ _____________ _____
982 F.2d 681, 685 (1st Cir. 1993). When two police officers
arrived at the scene (in plainclothes, with police badges
around their necks) and drew their guns, defendant pointed
the handgun at them from ten feet away. The officers
identified themselves and demanded that he drop the gun, and
he did so. But as they approached him, defendant "lunged"
for the gun (as he acknowledged at the Rule 11 hearing),
thereby causing a lengthy struggle.
There was also considerable hearsay evidence, we note,
suggesting that defendant was under the influence of drugs at
the time of the incident.

-6-













III.

Nor do we find merit in defendant's collateral claim

that he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to counsel

during the course of the Rule 32(d) hearing. This is not a

case like United States v. Ellison, 798 F.2d 1102, 1106-09 _____________ _______

(7th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1038 (1987), in which ____________

a defendant's allegation of specific misconduct on the part

of his attorney, and the latter's denial thereof, created a

palpable conflict. As mentioned, in response to the court's

questioning here, defendant and counsel agreed on the

pertinent factual issues. Where it can be determined (from

the face thereof or through preliminary inquiry) that a Rule

32(d) motion claiming ineffective assistance of counsel lacks

colorable merit, a court is under no obligation to conduct a

full-blown evidentiary hearing, see, e.g., United States v. ___ ____ _____________

Ramos, 810 F.2d 308, 314 (1st Cir. 1987), or to secure _____

substitute counsel, see, e.g., United States v. Trussel, 961 ___ ____ _____________ _______

F.2d 685, 688-90 (7th Cir. 1992); United States v. Rhodes, _____________ ______

913 F.2d 839, 841-46 (10th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. ____________

1122 (1991); see also De Alba Pagan, 33 F.3d at 126-28. ________ _____________

Affirmed. _________











-7-






Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer