Background
Bruce Lamont Strickland pleaded guilty under a plea agreement to aiding and abetting the distribution of 50 grams or more of methamphetamine. The government agreed to dismiss a greater drug charge and two firearms charges. The district court accepted the guilty plea and later approved the agreement, but during sentencing Strickland denied knowing that his associate planned to bring methamphetamine to his apartment or that he intended to sell it.
Concerned that Strickland’s allocution contradicted his guilty plea, the district court adjourned the hearing and later said it would entertain a motion to withdraw the plea. After consulting counsel, Strickland moved to withdraw it while continuing to maintain his innocence. The court granted the motion, and a jury later convicted him of two drug-trafficking offenses and two firearms offenses. He received a total sentence of 360 months.
The Court’s Holding
The Eighth Circuit affirmed. It held that Strickland waived any claim based on the district court’s retraction of its approval of the plea agreement because he successfully moved to withdraw the guilty plea required by that agreement. His withdrawal breached the agreement, released the government from its obligations, and left no plea agreement for the court to approve.
The court also rejected Strickland’s contention that the district court forced him to withdraw his plea. Although the judge invited a withdrawal motion, Strickland retained the option to stand by the plea and seek enforcement or appellate review. After consulting counsel, he chose withdrawal because he maintained his innocence, and the record did not establish coercion.
Finally, the court upheld admission at trial of Strickland’s sentencing allocution. His statements were voluntary and made with advice of counsel, so their use did not violate due process or the privilege against self-incrimination. His Rule 410 objection also failed because the plea agreement waived challenges under that rule if he breached the agreement, which he did by withdrawing his plea and declining to plead guilty.
Key Takeaways
- A defendant who withdraws the guilty plea required by a plea agreement breaches that agreement and cannot demand its enforcement.
- A judge’s invitation to move to withdraw a plea is not coercion when the defendant consults counsel and retains the option to stand by the plea.
- A plea-agreement waiver may permit the government to use prior in-court statements after the defendant breaches the agreement by withdrawing the plea.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the significant consequences of withdrawing a guilty plea after making statements in open court. Withdrawal can eliminate the government’s concessions under the plea agreement and, when the agreement contains an evidentiary waiver, allow earlier statements to be used at trial.
It also distinguishes judicial concern about an apparent claim of innocence from coercion: advising a defendant of the inconsistency and offering an opportunity to seek withdrawal does not itself make the defendant’s counseled choice involuntary.