UNITED STATES v. GREENWOOD (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.2021-02-05No. No. 19-3152

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed the district court's denial of Greenwood's motion to withdraw his guilty plea, finding that the plea was entered knowingly and voluntarily and that Greenwood failed to demonstrate a fair and just reason for withdrawal.

Stevie Ray Greenwood pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm after selling firearms to a pawn shop in Arkansas while holding a prior felony conviction from Oklahoma. Several months after the plea hearing, Greenwood sought to withdraw his guilty plea, claiming his attorney coerced him into the agreement and that he was actually innocent. The district court rejected both arguments, noting that Greenwood's statements under oath at the plea hearing directly contradicted his later allegations of coercion, and that his bare assertion of innocence lacked supporting evidence.

On appeal, the court upheld the district court's decision. The appeals court found that Greenwood's sworn testimony at the change-of-plea hearing—in which he confirmed he discussed the case with counsel, was satisfied with representation, and was not being forced to plead—carried strong reliability and contradicted his subsequent claims. The court also determined that Greenwood's suggestion that he did not own the firearms was legally irrelevant, since the statute prohibits possession rather than ownership.

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

Key issues

Whether a guilty plea was entered knowingly and voluntarily when defendant's later assertions contradict his sworn statements at the plea hearing
Whether a bare assertion of innocence without supporting evidence constitutes a fair and just reason to withdraw a guilty plea
Whether an allegation of attorney coercion is credible when contradicted by defendant's under-oath acknowledgment of satisfaction with counsel

Procedural posture

Greenwood appealed the district court's denial of his pre-sentencing motion to withdraw his guilty plea and the subsequent 75-month sentence.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

[Unpublished]

Stevie Ray Greenwood pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of a firearm as a previously convicted felon. In August 2019, he moved to withdraw the plea. The district court

denied the motion and sentenced Greenwood to 75 months’ imprisonment. Greenwood appeals, and we affirm.

In May 2018, Greenwood sold ten firearms to a pawn shop in Fort Smith, Arkansas. Greenwood provided his Oklahoma drivers license to complete the sale. Later, federal investigators discovered that Greenwood had sustained a prior felony conviction in Oklahoma, and that two of the firearms had traveled in interstate commerce.

A grand jury charged Greenwood with unlawful possession of a firearm as a previously convicted felon, see 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), and possession of an unregistered firearm. See 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d). Greenwood agreed to plead guilty to the felon-in-possession charge, and the government agreed to move to dismiss the other count of the indictment.

At a change-of-plea hearing in February 2019, the district court conducted a colloquy in accordance with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11. Satisfied with Greenwoods responses, the court concluded that Greenwoods guilty plea was entered knowingly and voluntarily, accepted the plea, and adjudged him guilty.

In August 2019, Greenwood moved to withdraw his guilty plea. Greenwood asserted that he was innocent of the charge, and that his counsel at the time of the plea was ineffective. The district court concluded that Greenwoods assertions of ineffective assistance were “untimely and unreliable,” given that Greenwood failed to object at the change-of-plea hearing and “affirmatively acknowledged his satisfaction” with counsels representation. The court also found no evidence that Greenwoods admission of guilt was untrue. The court thus denied Greenwoods motion to withdraw the plea.

We review a district courts denial of a defendants motion to withdraw a guilty plea for abuse of discretion. United States v. Green, 521 F.3d 929, 931 (8th Cir. 2008). Whether a guilty plea is voluntary, however, is a mixed question of law and fact that we review de novo. Id. A district court may grant a defendants pre-sentencing motion to withdraw a guilty plea only if “the defendant can show a fair and just reason for requesting the withdrawal.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(d)(2)(B); see also United States v. Rollins, 552 F.3d 739, 741 (8th Cir. 2009).

Greenwood maintains that his former attorney “coerced” him into pleading guilty. Greenwood says that counsel insisted on entry into a plea agreement, refused to discuss the facts of the case with Greenwood, and demanded $10,000 to take the case to trial. Greenwoods allegations, however, are contradicted by statements he made under oath at the change-of-plea hearing. At the hearing, Greenwood said that he discussed the charges and plea agreement with counsel before signing the agreement. Greenwood also confirmed that he was “fully satisfied” with counsels representation. When the district court asked if anyone was forcing Greenwood to plead guilty, he answered in the negative. Statements made under oath “in open court carry a strong presumption of verity,” Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 74, 97 S.Ct. 1621, 52 L.Ed.2d 136 (1977), and it was permissible for the district court to view Greenwoods later inconsistent assertions as inherently unreliable. See United States v. McHenry, 849 F.3d 699, 706 (8th Cir. 2017). The district court did not err in concluding that the plea was entered knowingly and voluntarily.

Greenwood also asserts that he is innocent of the charged offense. Although a defendants assertion of innocence is a relevant factor in determining whether he has shown a fair and just reason for requesting the withdrawal of a plea, a “conclusory assertion of innocence” is insufficient. United States v. Cruz, 643 F.3d 639, 643 (8th Cir. 2011). Greenwood presented no evidence to undermine the courts judgment of guilt. He suggests that someone else owned the firearms that he sold to the pawn shop, but the offense of conviction forbids possession, not ownership, so more information about the provenance of the guns would not establish innocence. See 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The district court thus did not err in denying the motion to withdraw the plea for lack of an adequate reason.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

. The Honorable P.K. Holmes, III, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas.

PER CURIAM.