UNITED STATES v. WANGWAMBA (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.2021-01-14No. No. 19-11362

Summary · law.co

Holding. The judgment was affirmed and the motion to withdraw the guilty plea was denied because the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the withdrawal, and the appeal waiver foreclosed review of the supervised release condition challenge.

Innocent Wangwamba pleaded guilty to theft of government money under a plea agreement that included an appeal waiver. On appeal, he sought to withdraw his guilty plea and challenged a condition of supervised release included in his sentence. Wangwamba's appointed counsel initially filed a brief but sought to withdraw and allow Wangwamba to file his own brief instead; the court denied this request because counsel showed neither a conflict of interest nor grounds requiring withdrawal in the interest of justice. Regarding the motion to withdraw the guilty plea, the court examined the circumstances using established factors and found that Wangwamba's bare assertion of innocence was insufficient. The court also weighed against him the substantial delays in filing his withdrawal motions, his own subsequent withdrawals of those motions, and the fact that he had received adequate legal assistance and entered his plea knowingly and voluntarily. As to the supervised release condition, both parties acknowledged that Wangwamba's appeal waiver barred review of this issue.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether appointed counsel could withdraw to permit pro se supplemental briefing
Whether the district court abused discretion in denying a motion to withdraw a guilty plea
Whether an appeal waiver bars challenge to a supervised release condition

Procedural posture

Wangwamba appealed from the district court's denial of his motion to withdraw a guilty plea and challenged a condition of supervised release, after having pleaded guilty under an agreement containing an appeal waiver.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

Innocent Wangwamba pleaded guilty, per a plea agreement with an appeal waiver, of theft of government money. He was sentenced to prison followed by supervised release.

Wangwambas appointed counsel filed a brief in this appeal, then moved to withdraw his representation and his brief and requested to substitute Wangwambas pro se brief. Because counsel has not shown that there is a conflict of interest or that the interests of justice require relief of counsel, we deny the motion. See Fifth Circuit Plan Under the Criminal Justice Act § 5(B); see also Myers v. Johnson, 76 F.3d 1330, 1335 (5th Cir. 1996) (noting that a defendant who accepts the assistance of counsel on appeal has no constitutional right to hybrid representation and cannot expect to be allowed to file a supplemental pro se brief).

Wangwamba challenges the denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. We review for abuse of discretion. United States v. McKnight, 570 F.3d 641, 645 (5th Cir. 2009). In evaluating the denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea, we consider the totality of the circumstances, including the seven factors in United States v. Carr, 740 F.2d 339, 343−44 (5th Cir. 1984).

The record supports the denial based on the district courts consideration of the Carr factors. Wangwambas bald assertion of innocence is insufficient to show that the court erred in denying the motion to withdraw the guilty plea. See United States v. Bond, 87 F.3d 695, 701 (5th Cir. 1996). Also weighing against Wangwamba is the ten-month delay before he filed his original motion to withdraw his guilty plea, his later withdrawal of that motion, and an additional six-month delay in filing a second motion to withdraw his guilty plea (which he also sought to withdraw). See, e.g., United States v. Thomas, 13 F.3d 151, 153 (5th Cir. 1994) (finding a six-week delay “significant”).

Wangwamba also received close assistance of counsel, and his guilty plea and plea waiver were knowing and voluntary. See McKnight, 570 F.3d at 646−48; Carr, 740 F.2d at 345. And finally, the district court was in the “best position to know the effect that the withdrawal [would have] on its resources.” Carr, 740 F.2d at 345. Accordingly, Wangwamba has failed to demonstrate that the district court abused its discretion in denying the motion to withdraw his guilty plea.

Wangwamba challenges a special condition of supervised release that was included in the written judgment but not pronounced at sentencing. He and the government agree that the appeal waiver applies to this issue, see United States v. Higgins, 739 F.3d 733, 737−39 (5th Cir. 2014), but he raises the claim to preserve it for future appellate review. We agree that the waiver applies and that the claim is foreclosed. Id.

The judgment is AFFIRMED, and the motion to withdraw is DENIED.

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE

Per Curiam:*

FN* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.