United States v. Kramer ( 1999 )

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
PUBLISH
FEB 17 1999
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
TENTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
No. 97-2289
DAVID GEORGE KRAMER,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the D. N.M.
(D.C. No. CR-96-337-BB)
Vera S. Ockenfels, Albuquerque, New Mexico, for Defendant-Appellant.
Sasha Siemel, Assistant United States Attorney (John J. Kelly, United States
Attorney and Mary L. Higgins, Assistant United States Attorney), Albuquerque,
New Mexico, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Before ANDERSON , McKAY and EBEL, Circuit Judges.
EBEL, Circuit Judge.
Defendant-Appellant David George Kramer appeals the district court’s
denial of his Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(e) motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Kramer
contends that his guilty plea was involuntary. He asserts that he was ill when his
plea was taken and consequently did not understand the ramifications of his plea;
he further contends that his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to investigate
adequately the facts of his case before his plea or trial. Because we believe that
appellant failed to meet his burden under Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(e) of establishing
that there was a “fair and just reason” for allowing withdrawal of his guilty plea,
we affirm the judgment of the district court.
BACKGROUND
In 1993, Kramer offered for sale three Native American items – a prayer
stick bundle containing bird feathers, a sun disk, and a tablita – at the
Albuquerque Antique Connection, a consignment store in Albuquerque, New
Mexico. At that time, Kramer had been selling Native American items for over
20 years.
Religious leaders from Jemez Pueblo, New Mexico, identified the prayer
stick bundle, the sun disk, and the tablita as belonging to the Pueblo; none of the
three items had been released to anyone in accordance with Jemez Pueblo tribal
law. All three items were considered religious and cultural objects bearing
significant ritual status.
Based on these facts, Kramer was charged on June 6, 1996 with violating
16 U.S.C. §§ 703, 707(a), and 707(b)(2) (Migratory Bird Treaty Act) (Counts I
-2-
and IV); 18 U.S.C. § 1170 and 25 U.S.C. §§ 3001(3)(D) and 3002(c) (Illegal
Trafficking in Native American Items) (Counts II-III); and 16 U.S.C. § 668 (Bald
and Golden Eagle Act) (Count V). Kramer’s original counsel withdrew shortly
after arraignment, and on August 1, 1996, the district court appointed Kramer
another attorney. Between August 1996 and January 1997, the case was set once
for a change of plea hearing, and was thereafter set for trial five times, the last
date set for January 13, 1997. During that period, Kramer’s second counsel,
Armando Torres, filed three motions to suppress and submitted both voir dire
questions and jury instructions. Torres also moved to withdraw as counsel in
November 1996 on grounds that the attorney-client relationship had collapsed.
The trial court denied Torres’ motion to withdraw because no other attorney could
be found who could try the case by January 1997.
On January 8, 1997, a superseding indictment was returned, adding
language regarding the bird feathers relevant to Count I. Kramer was arraigned
on the superseding indictment on January 13, 1997, the same date his case was set
for hearing on his motions and for trial. However, instead of proceeding to trial,
Kramer entered a plea of guilty to Count II of the superseding indictment, which
charged him with a misdemeanor violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1170 (illegal trafficking
in Native American cultural items). As part of the plea agreement, all remaining
counts were dismissed.
-3-
During the trial court’s inquiry pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 11, Kramer was
asked whether he had taken any narcotic drugs or medications before the hearing.
Kramer testified that he had taken Percodan, 1 but acknowledged that this
medication did not impair his ability to understand the proceedings. He further
testified that he understood his right to a trial, that he understood the charge and
had discussed it with his attorney, and that he was willing to waive his rights
associated with a trial. As the trial court proceeded with its Rule 11 protocol, the
following exchange took place between the court and Kramer:
Q. All right. You don’t dispute that these were sacred objects that
you were offering for sale at the Antique Mall?
A. Patrimony items, as opposed to sacred, I believe.
Q. You don’t dispute they were patrimony items?
A. I believe anything handled by or touched or offered by a Native
American is “quote” from their society, and, therefore, their spiritual
realm has context to each and every item, whether it be contemporary
or 200 years old. It doesn’t make any difference.
Q. All right. I sense some doubt. Do you in any way have any
reservations about pleading guilty to this charge? You need to plead
guilty voluntarily and knowingly. I don’t want you to be coerced or
plead guilty if you don’t think you are guilty. If you want to go to
trial, you have the right to do that. You understand?
A. Under the circumstances, it wouldn’t behoove the Government or
myself to proceed outside of my plea of guilty.
Q. So you wish to plead guilty to Count II?
A. Yes.
Q. I will accept the plea of guilty and enter a judgment thereon. I’ll
find that the plea is free and voluntarily made. The defendant
1
It was later clarified during Kramer’s Motion to Withdraw Plea that he had
taken Prednisone, not Percodan.
-4-
understands the charges and the penalties, and the plea agreement has
been properly executed and it will be filed.
(Plea Tr. at 16-17.)
Following the plea hearing, Torres was allowed to withdraw as defense
counsel, and counsel from the Federal Public Defender’s office was appointed for
sentencing, which was scheduled for June 20, 1997.
On June 17, 1997, newly appointed counsel filed, at Kramer’s direction, a
Motion to Withdraw Plea pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(e), asserting that the
guilty plea had been involuntary. The grounds for the motion were set forth in a
document written by Kramer, which stated that 1) federal and state laws failed to
address the charge to which he pleaded guilty as a criminal offense; 2) federal and
state laws failed to assess a penalty for violation of the charge to which he
pleaded guilty; 3) the sentence contemplated by the plea agreement was
unauthorized; 4) his plea was involuntary because of extreme duress, a serious
illness at the time of the plea, and the coerciveness inherent in counsel’s failure to
prepare a defense.
On June 20, 1997, the district court heard testimony from Kramer in
support of his motion to withdraw, as well as oral argument from counsel.
Kramer testified that he had been so ill during the plea hearing that he had not
known “in-depth” what was happening; that he had been “a zombie” and “just
could see what was in front of [him].” To corroborate his claim, Kramer testified
-5-
that he was taking several medications on the plea date (including an antibiotic,
an antihistamine, and a steroid) and that he had gone to Santa Fe immediately
after the plea to see a doctor. He also noted that he had been allowed to sit
throughout the plea proceedings, ostensibly because of his weakened condition.
Counsel pointed to the presentence report, in which Kramer had reported to the
probation officer that his health was “terrible,” that he suffered from bronchial
asthma, that he had a chest infection, and that he was taking several medications.
Kramer further testified that he had experienced difficulties with Torres,
his (second) court-appointed counsel, in that Torres had failed to return phone
calls, failed to perform legal research and present arguments that Kramer felt
were relevant to his case, and failed to investigate the facts of his case before
trial.
Other than his testimony during the hearing on his withdrawal motion,
Kramer offered no evidence in support of his arguments that he had been unable
to comprehend the ramifications of his plea or that his counsel had been
ineffective.
The government opposed Kramer’s motion, contending that it had been
prepared to go to trial on January 13, 1997, and that recalling witnesses, including
one from out of state, would create some inconvenience. The government further
-6-
objected that Kramer’s delay in filing his motion to withdraw until three days
before sentencing was inexplicable and prejudicial to the government.
The district court ruled that Kramer’s plea had been knowing and
voluntary, and that Kramer had received the assistance of competent counsel.
Noting that one prior plea hearing had been vacated, and that the case had been
set for trial five times, the court concluded that Kramer was “attempting to play
yo-yo with the court” and “trying to perpetrate an injustice on the judicial
system.” The court found that allowing Kramer’s motion to withdraw his plea
and proceed to trial would be prejudicial to the government, an inconvenience to
the court, and a waste of judicial resources. It therefore denied Kramer’s motion
to withdraw his plea and sentenced Kramer to three years’ probation.
DISCUSSION
Kramer argues on appeal that his plea was entered involuntarily due to a
combination of his extreme illness and his counsel’s ineffective representation.
He submits that, given his testimony with respect to these two issues, the trial
court should have allowed him to withdraw his plea.
A. Voluntariness of the guilty plea
We review the voluntariness of a guilty plea de novo. United States v.
Carr, 80 F.3d 413, 416 (10th Cir. 1996). The test for determining the validity of a
guilty plea is “‘whether the plea represents a voluntary and intelligent choice
-7-
among the alternative courses of action open to the defendant.’” Id. (quoting Hill
v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 56 (1985)).
The record simply does not support Kramer’s claim that his decision to plea
was less than a voluntary and intelligent choice. Kramer signed a plea agreement
in which he agreed to plead guilty to a misdemeanor violation in exchange for the
government’s agreement to dismiss the remaining counts. The trial court
conducted a thorough inquiry at Kramer’s plea hearing, during which Kramer
affirmed that he understood what was happening; that he had discussed the case
with his attorney; that he understood the charge to which he was pleading guilty;
that he understood the possible penalties; and that he understood he was waiving
his trial-related rights. Additionally, Kramer denied that anyone had threatened
or coerced him to plead guilty.
Kramer’s contention that his plea was not knowing and voluntary due to his
extreme illness lacks merit. Beyond his statements at the hearing on his motion
to withdraw the plea, Kramer offered no evidence (such as medical records or
narcotic drug prescriptions or doctors’ affidavits) to support his assertion that he
was too ill to understand “in-depth” what was happening when he pleaded guilty.
His conclusory statements regarding his acute illness are, absent any other
evidence, insufficient to show that his plea was involuntary.
-8-
Kramer’s contention that his trial counsel’s ineffective assistance resulted
in an involuntary guilty plea is likewise unpersuasive. 2 The two-pronged test for
evaluating ineffective assistance claims, set forth in Strickland v. Washington,
466 U.S. 668 (1984), also applies to challenges to guilty pleas. See Carr, 80 F.3d
at 417. A defendant must show 1) that his counsel’s performance fell below an
objective standard of reasonableness; and 2) that counsel’s deficient performance
was prejudicial. See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 688, 692. To show prejudice in the
guilty plea context, the defendant must establish that there is a reasonable
probability that, but for counsel’s errors, the defendant would not have pleaded
guilty and would have insisted on going to trial. See United States v. Gordon, 4
F.3d 1567, 1570 (10th Cir. 1993). Kramer has failed to make either Strickland
showing.
2
Ordinarily the preferred avenue for challenging the effectiveness of
counsel in a federal criminal case is via collateral attack, because ineffectiveness
claims often require consideration of evidence not yet in the record on direct
appeal. See United States v. Gordon, 4 F.3d 1567, 1570 (10th Cir. 1993).
However, we will entertain such claims on direct appeal in cases such as this,
where the record is sufficiently developed on the issue, where the defendant is
represented by different counsel on appeal, and where the claim merits no further
factual inquiry. See id. at 1569-70. Moreover, the district court in this case
addressed this claim in the context of Kramer’s motion to withdraw plea, and
concluded that Kramer had in fact received effective assistance. Thus, the
concerns that ordinarily counsel against review of ineffectiveness claims on direct
appeal are not present in this case.
-9-
Kramer asserts that Torres was ineffective in that he did not investigate or
present legal arguments that Kramer believed were relevant to his defense,
leading him to believe that he had no choice but to plead guilty. Specifically,
Kramer maintains that Torres did not investigate whether the items listed in the
indictment were of “cultural patrimony,” as defined in 25 U.S.C. § 3001(3)(D).
He further contends that Torres did not investigate whether the district court had
subject matter jurisdiction over the government’s prosecution of his alleged
violation of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act
(“NAGPRA” or “the Act”), as the spirit of NAGPRA, Kramer submits, is to
assure the return of cultural items from federal agencies and museums, not from
individuals. Both arguments are legally meritless.
Kramer pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1170(b),
which makes it unlawful to knowingly sell, purchase, use for profit, or transport
for sale or profit any Native American cultural items obtained in violation of
NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. §§ 3001 et seq. NAGPRA defines “cultural items” to
include items of “cultural patrimony,” which means objects
having ongoing historical, traditional, or cultural importance central
to the Native American group or culture itself, rather than property
owned by an individual Native American, and which, therefore
cannot be alienated, appropriated, or conveyed by any individual
regardless of whether or not the individual is a member of the Indian
tribe . . . .
25 U.S.C. § 3001(3)(D).
- 10 -
Kramer argues that Torres should have challenged the government’s ability
to prove that the items were of “cultural patrimony” as defined in NAGPRA.
However, Kramer did not dispute that they were patrimony items in response to
the court’s inquiry at the plea hearing 3; and Kramer offers no evidence now to
support his assertion that the items were not communally owned. In addition, the
government informed the district court at the plea hearing that had the case gone
to trial, Jemez tribal witnesses would have testified that the items were authentic
tribal cultural and religious items and were considered inalienable objects.
Defendant has made no credible showing that he was innocent of the charge on
this ground, and therefore it would have been fruitless for his counsel to have
raised the issue.
Kramer also appears to argue that because the provisions of NAGPRA refer
repeatedly to federal agencies and museums, the Act was not intended to apply to
individuals such as himself. It is true that Congress enacted NAGPRA to protect
Native American human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, and objects of
cultural patrimony, and to repatriate such objects currently held or controlled by
federal agencies and museums. See United States v. Corrow, 119 F.3d 796, 799-
800 (10th Cir. 1997)(citing H.R. Rep. No. 101-877 (1990), reprinted in 1990
3
In fact, when the court asked whether Kramer disputed that the items he
offered for sale were “sacred objects,” Kramer corrected the court by responding,
“Patrimony items, as opposed to sacred, I believe.” (Plea Tr. at 16.)
- 11 -
U.S.C.C.A.N. 4367, 4368), cert. denied, 118 S. Ct. 1089 (1998). However, “to
give teeth to this statutory mission,” section 4 of NAGPRA amended Title 18 of
the United States Code to criminalize trafficking in Native American human
remains and cultural items, in an effort to eliminate the profit incentive perceived
to be a motivating force behind the plundering of such items. See id.; see also
Sherry Hunt, Illegal Trafficking in Native American Human Remains and Cultural
Items: A New Protection Tool, 24 Ariz. St. L.J. 135, 135 & n.3 (citing Hearings
on S. 1021 and S. 1980 Before the Sen. Select Comm. on Indian Affairs, 101st
Cong., 2d Sess. 69 (1990) (statement of Keith Kintigh)). It is clear that the
criminal provision, 18 U.S.C. § 1170(b), to which defendant pleaded guilty,
encompasses violations by individual traders such as Kramer. See, e.g., Corrow,
119 F.3d at 804-05 (affirming conviction under § 1170 of individual Native
American artifacts trader).
In short, because the legal arguments Kramer contends his counsel should
have raised are meritless, Torres’ failure to pursue them was neither deficient nor
prejudicial under Strickland. We therefore reject Kramer’s claim that his guilty
plea was involuntary due to his counsel’s ineffective assistance.
B. Trial Court’s Denial of Kramer’s Motion to Withdraw Plea
Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(e) provides that if a defendant moves to withdraw his
guilty plea prior to sentencing, “the court may permit the plea to be withdrawn if
- 12 -
the defendant shows any fair and just reason.” The burden of demonstrating a
“fair and just reason” rests with the defendant. See Gordon, 4 F.3d at 1572.
In Gordon, we set out the relevant considerations for determining whether a
defendant has shown a fair and just reason for permitting withdrawal of the
defendant’s guilty plea: (1) whether the defendant has asserted his innocence; (2)
prejudice to the government if the motion is granted; (3) defendant’s delay in
filing the withdrawal motion; (4) inconvenience to the court if the motion is
granted; (5) defendant’s assistance of counsel; (6) whether the plea was knowing
and voluntary; and (7) the waste of judicial resources. Id. 4; see also United States
v. Killingsworth, 117 F.3d 1159, 1161-62 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 118 S. Ct. 393(1997).
We review the district court’s denial of Kramer’s motion to withdraw his
guilty plea for abuse of discretion. See Carr, 80 F.3d at 419. Although a
defendant’s motion to withdraw a plea before sentencing should be “freely
allowed” and “given a great deal of latitude,” id., we will not reverse absent a
showing that the trial court acted “unjustly or unfairly.” Id. Applying the seven
factors under Gordon, we believe that Kramer failed to demonstrate a fair and just
reason for withdrawal of his plea.
4
Subdivision (e) of Fed. R. Crim. P. 32, which addresses plea withdrawals,
was formerly subdivision (d). Gordon was decided prior to this 1994 amendment
to Rule 32, and therefore refers to Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(d).
- 13 -
Although Kramer did assert his innocence, his quarrels with the statute, as
we have discussed, are unavailing. Moreover, he does not dispute that he offered
the items at issue for sale. Taken together, the remaining factors weigh decisively
against the defendant: the government would be prejudiced in that it would have
to recall its witnesses; the defendant delayed his motion to withdraw until the eve
of sentencing, nearly three months after he was appointed his third attorney and
five months after pleading guilty; the court would be inconvenienced if this case
went to trial, given that it was set for trial five times and Kramer had been
appointed three different attorneys as of the time of the withdrawal motion;
Kramer received effective assistance from his trial counsel; his plea was knowing
and voluntary; and finally, allowing this case to proceed to trial would be a waste
of judicial resources, as it is unlikely that a trial would produce a result any
different than his plea. In sum, Kramer has failed to demonstrate that the district
court acted unjustly or unfairly in denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea.
We find no abuse of discretion.
CONCLUSION
We hold that Defendant-Appellant Kramer’s guilty plea was voluntary and
that the district court’s denial of Kramer’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea was
- 14 -
proper. Accordingly, the district court’s denial of Kramer’s motion is
AFFIRMED.
- 15 -