Opinion
Criminal No. 00-79(1) (JRT/FLN).
February 26, 2001.
Jeffrey S. Paulsen, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Minneapolis, MN, for plaintiff.
Steven J. Meshbesher, MESHBESHER ASSOCIATES, P.A., Minneapolis, MN, for defendant.
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO AMEND OR WITHDRAW GUILTY PLEA
This matter is before the Court on defendant's motion to amend his plea or in the alternative withdraw his plea pursuant to Rule 32(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. For the reasons that follow, the Court denies defendant's motion.
BACKGROUND
On March 6, 2000, a cooperating individual informed Drug Enforcement Agents that she had been selling pound quantities of cocaine to defendant Matthew Montag and co-defendant Christina Langner on a weekly basis. On March 8, 2000, the cooperating individual arranged for undercover agents to meet defendants in a St. Cloud area parking lot to conduct a narcotics transaction involving four pounds of methamphatamine. Co-defendant Langner drove into the parking lot and informed the agents to follow her to another location. When the agents refused, Langner agreed to go pick up Montag and return to the parking lot. Upon their return, Montag said he wanted to conduct the transaction somewhere else, to which the agents complied. Montag subsequently completed the deal and he and Langner were arrested.
On April 3, 2000, a two count indictment was filed against defendants, charging them with Conspiracy to Distribute in Excess of 500 Grams of Methamphetamine from January 1, 1999 through March 8, 2000, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 and § 841(b)(1)(A) and one count of Possession with Intent to Distribute Approximately Four Pounds of Methamphetamine on March 8, 2000 in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), § 841(b)(1)(A) and 18 U.S.C. § 2.
On May 24, 2000, defendant entered into a plea agreement with the government and on June 16, 2000, defendant appeared before the Court and entered a plea of guilty to Count 1 of the Indictment. Defendant now wishes to amend or withdraw his plea on the basis that he believed 5-15 kilograms of methamphetamine was the same quantity as 5-15 pounds of methamphetamine. Defendant also believes that his chemical dependency and mental health problems prevented him from giving a knowing and voluntary plea.
On July 6, 2000, co-defendant Langner entered a plea of guilty to Count 2 of the Indictment. Langner was sentenced by this Court on October 18, 2000.
ANALYSIS
1. Motion to Withdraw Plea
Defendant moves to withdraw his plea pursuant to Rule 32(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. According to Rule 32(e), a court may permit a defendant to withdraw his plea before sentence is imposed "if the defendant shows any fair and just reason" for such relief. Fed.R.Crim.P. 32(e). It is in the sound discretion of the district court to determine whether or not the defendant has satisfied his burden of proving a "fair and just reason" for withdrawal of his guilty plea. United States v. Allen, 981 F. Supp. 564, 571 (N.D.Iowa 1997); United States v. Jones, 111 F.3d 597, 601 (8th Cir. 1997).
Despite the broad language of Rule 32(e), courts have found a "fair and just reason" for withdrawal of a guilty plea in few circumstances. Id. In United States v. Boone, 869 F.2d 1089 (8th Cir. 1989), the Eighth Circuit enumerated the following factors to consider in determining whether to grant a motion to withdraw a plea:
(1) whether defendant established a fair and just reason to withdraw his plea; 2) whether defendant asserts his legal innocence of a charge; 3) the length of time between the guilty plea and the motion to withdraw; and 4) if the defendant established a fair and just reason for withdrawal, whether the government will be prejudiced.
Id. at 1091-92.
Defendant offers two independent reasons why the Court should permit defendant to withdraw his plea. First, defendant claims his plea was not knowing and voluntary because of his unstable mental health and his long-term substance abuse. Second, defendant claims he did not knowingly stipulate to conspiracy and intent to distribute 5-15 kilograms of methamphetamine because he mistakenly believed that a kilogram is the equivalent of a pound. Thus, by pleading to 5-15 kilograms of methamphetamine as opposed to 5-15 pounds of methamphetamine, defendant mistakenly plead to over twice the amount of drugs. In response to defendant's latter argument, the government argues that because defendant is a career offender, his sentence would not change even if he plead to the lesser amount. Thus, since defendant's alleged error in pleading to the higher amount does not prejudice him, the Court should deny defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea.
The Court first addresses defendant's claim that his decision to plead guilty was not knowing and voluntary because of his mental health and substance abuse problems. Defendant provides no evidence that defendant's cognitive functions were impaired at the time he entered his guilty plea before the Court. See United States v. McNeely, 20 F.3d 886, 888 (8th Cir. 1994) (denying defendant's motion where defendant failed to produce evidence that his untreated medical condition rendered his plea unknowing and involuntary). Defendant's motion to withdraw his plea on this basis is thus denied.
The Court also denies defendant's motion to withdraw his plea on the basis that he believed he was pleading to 5-15 pounds of methamphetamine as opposed to 5-15 kilograms of methamphetamine. Defendant's claim is not that he is innocent of the charges, but only that he mistakenly plead to a greater quantity of drugs than he believed. It is also significant that nearly five months have passed between the time defendant entered his plea and his motion to withdraw. See Boone, 869 F.2d at 1092
Defendant appeared before this Court and entered his guilty plea on June 16, 2000. Defendant filed his motion to amend or withdraw his plea on November 8, 2000. (denying defendant's motion to withdraw where defendant did not assert his legal innocence and he waited two months before filing his motion to withdraw his guilty plea).
Additionally, defendant's alleged mistake does not appear to prejudice him. According to the Pre-Sentence Report, defendant is a career offender for sentencing purposes. Defendant's base offense level of 37 would not change even if he plead to 5-15 pounds of methamphetamine because the plea would still be for a quantity of methamphetamine over 500 grams (1.1 pounds). See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A)(viii) (listing offense statutory maximum as life). For the above-stated reasons, the Court finds that defendant has failed to establish a just and fair reason to withdraw his plea. Defendant's motion is thus denied.
Although defendant has filed objections to his classification as a career offender, neither objection appears meritorious.
2. Motion to Amend Plea
The Court denies defendant's motion to amend for the same reasons the Court denies defendant's motion to withdraw. To the extent defendant believes his objection is an objection to drug quantity, defendant can bring such objection in a separate motion pursuant to Local Rule 83.10.
ORDER
Based upon the foregoing, the submissions of the parties, and all of the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant's motion to amend plea or in the alternative withdraw plea pursuant to Federal Rules Criminal Procedure 32(e) [Docket No. 71] is DENIED.