United States v. Santo Islaam ( 2015 )

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
_____________
No. 14-4175
_____________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
SANTO ISLAAM,
Appellant
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey
(District Court No.: 1-12-cr-00776-001)
District Judge: Honorable Robert B. Kugler
Submitted under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
On June 1, 2015
Before: RENDELL, HARDIMAN, and VANASKIE, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: June 22, 2015)
O P I N I O N*
*
This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
RENDELL, Circuit Judge:
Appellant Santo Islaam appeals from the District Court’s denial of his motion to
withdraw his guilty plea. For the reasons articulated below, we will affirm.
On February 24, 2012, Camden City Police arrested Appellant after observing him
providing cash to another individual in exchange for certain small items. The police
officers who stopped him found a loaded revolver, two zip-lock bags of heroin, and a bag
of cocaine on his person. Appellant was arrested and subsequently indicted for unlawful
possession of a firearm as a felon, unlawful transportation of firearms, and possession of
heroin and cocaine. Appellant was represented by an Assistant Federal Public Defender
and entered a plea of guilty on September 16, 2013 to Possession of a Weapon by a
Convicted Felon. In exchange for this plea, the Government agreed to dismiss his other
two counts at his sentencing.
Subsequently, Appellee filed a pro se letter to the District Court, which it
interpreted as a Motion for New Counsel and Motion to Withdraw his Guilty Plea. In the
letter, Appellant asserted that his counsel coerced him to plead guilty by advising him
that he was potentially facing a penalty of 25 years to life if convicted at trial, and that he
had no realistic chance of being found not guilty. The District Court appointed him new
counsel, who represented in the hearing on his withdrawal motion that, if called to testify,
Appellant would state that the firearm was not his, was not in his possession at the time
of arrest, and that he was not aware of its existence at the time of his arrest. Appellant’s
new counsel also stated that Appellant would testify that the officers who arrested him
2
lied when they stated that they found the firearm on his person, and that it was in fact
recovered from the wheel well of a nearby car.
The District Court denied Appellant’s motion to withdraw his plea, finding that he
had not met his burden of showing sufficiently strong reasons to justify the withdrawal.
The Court credited his sworn testimony of his guilt from his prior court appearances over
his unsworn recantations of his plea through his attorney, and found that he had not
demonstrated that his original counsel had given him incorrect legal advice, or coerced
him to plead guilty.
We review a district court’s ruling on a motion to withdraw a guilty plea for abuse
of discretion. United States v. Siddons, 660 F.3d 699, 703 (3d Cir. 2011). A district
court has the discretion to permit a defendant to withdraw a guilty plea prior to
sentencing if the defendant can show “a fair and just reason for requesting the
withdrawal.” Fed. R. Crim. Pr. 11(d)(2)(B). “When determining whether a defendant
has shown a fair and just reason for withdrawing a guilty plea, a district court must
consider whether: (1) the defendant asserts his innocence; (2) the defendant proffered
strong reasons justifying the withdrawal; and (3) the government would be prejudiced by
the withdrawal.” Siddons, 660 F.3d at 703. “Assertions of innocence must be buttressed
by facts in the record that support a claimed defense.” Id. “A shift in defense tactics, a
change of mind, or the fear of punishment are not adequate reasons to impose on the
government the expense, difficulty, and risk of trying a defendant who has already
acknowledged his guilt by pleading guilty.” Id. at 703 (quoting United States v. Jones,
336 F.3d 245, 252 (3d Cir. 2003)).
3
Appellant failed to carry his burden of demonstrating a fair and just reason
sufficient to justify permitting him to withdraw his guilty plea. While Appellant asserted
his innocence, he did not corroborate that claim with objective evidence, such as
statements from other witnesses or other tangible evidence. The District Court
reasonably credited his previous admission of guilt under oath over his later recantations
of that admission while not under oath – namely, by way of a proffer through his
attorney.
The District Court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting Appellant’s contention
that his original trial counsel was ineffective. “A court will permit a defendant to
withdraw a guilty plea based on ineffective assistance of counsel only if (1) the defendant
shows that his attorney’s advice was under all the circumstances unreasonable under
prevailing professional norms, and (2) the defendant shows that he suffered ‘sufficient
prejudice’ from his counsel’s errors.” Jones, 336 F.3d at 253-54 (internal citations
omitted). Appellant argues that he pled guilty to the gun possession charge despite his
innocence because his counsel advised him that he had no chance of winning at trial, and
that the District Court judge had “stacked the deck” in favor of the prosecutor. However,
this advice was reasonable. At trial, the Government would have presented the
eyewitness testimony of two police officers who would have stated that they saw
Appellant engage in a drug transaction, and found a gun and drugs on his person upon
stopping him. The jury would have likely believed the testimony of the two police
officers over the Appellant, a convicted felon, particularly because Appellant provided no
reason why the officers would have framed him for the crime, or how they would have
4
known to look for the firearm in the wheel well of a nearby vehicle. Appellant faced 25
years to life imprisonment if convicted by a jury. Additionally, the Government had
agreed to drop the drug possession charges against him in exchange for a guilty plea on
the gun possession charge.
In Government of the Virgin Islands v. Berry, we affirmed a district court’s denial
of a defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea. 631 F.2d 214, 221 (3d Cir. 1980).
The defendant argued that he submitted the plea because his counsel mistakenly assumed
that the defendant’s co-conspirator would testify against him at his own trial, which he
did not. Id. Despite acknowledging this tactical mistake on counsel’s part, the district
court refused to let him withdraw the plea, and we agreed. Id. We see no miscalculation
or tactical mistake here; rather, counsel’s advice to Appellant was sound. Therefore, not
only was counsel’s advice that he take the plea reasonable, it was not an error that caused
him any prejudice. Additionally, Appellant put forward no other evidence that his
counsel exerted coercive pressure on him to plead guilty.
Because Appellant has not met his burden under either of the first two Siddons
factors, the Government did not need to demonstrate that it would have been prejudiced
by the withdrawal of his guilty plea. See Jones, 336 F.3d at 255; United States v. Harris,
44 F.3d 1206, 1210 (3d Cir. 1995). Therefore, we will affirm.
5