Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 30 views

    United States v. David Stuckey, 4th Cir. (2013)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case involving defendants David Stuckey and Demario Covington appealing the denial of their motions to withdraw guilty pleas for conspiracy to traffic cocaine and crack cocaine. The court affirmed the district court's denial, finding that the defendants did not demonstrate a fair and just reason for withdrawing their pleas under the six factors used to determine such motions. The court also affirmed the denial of Stuckey's counsel's motion to withdraw, finding no abuse of discretion in the district court's ruling.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    United States v. David Stuckey, 4th Cir. (2013)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    30 views6 pages
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case involving defendants David Stuckey and Demario Covington appealing the denial of their motions to withdraw guilty pleas for conspiracy to traffic cocaine and crack cocaine. The court affirmed the district court's denial, finding that the defendants did not demonstrate a fair and just reason for withdrawing their pleas under the six factors used to determine such motions. The court also affirmed the denial of Stuckey's counsel's motion to withdraw, finding no abuse of discretion in the district court's ruling.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2013-09-30 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 12-5005

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case involving defendants David Stuckey and Demario Covington appealing the denial of their motions to withdraw guilty pleas for conspiracy to traffic cocaine and crack cocaine. The court affirmed the district court's denial, finding that the defendants did not demonstrate a fair and just reason for withdrawing their pleas under the six factors used to determine such motions. The court also affirmed the denial of Stuckey's counsel's motion to withdraw, finding no abuse of discretion in the district court's ruling.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    30 views6 pages

    United States v. David Stuckey, 4th Cir. (2013)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case involving defendants David Stuckey and Demario Covington appealing the denial of their motions to withdraw guilty pleas for conspiracy to traffic cocaine and crack cocaine. The court affirmed the district court's denial, finding that the defendants did not demonstrate a fair and just reason for withdrawing their pleas under the six factors used to determine such motions. The court also affirmed the denial of Stuckey's counsel's motion to withdraw, finding no abuse of discretion in the district court's ruling.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    You are on page 1of 6

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 12-5005

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    DAVID STUCKEY, a/k/a Shortstop,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    No. 12-5022

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    DEMARIO COVINGTON, a/k/a Booger,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeals from the United States District Court for the District
    of South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, Chief District
    Judge. (4:11-cr-00417-TLW-11)

    Submitted:

    September 20, 2013

    Decided:

    September 30, 2013

    Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Melvin W. Cockrell, III, COCKRELL LAW FIRM, PC, Chesterfield,


    South Carolina; Nicole Nicolette Mace, THE MACE FIRM, Myrtle
    Beach, South Carolina, for Appellants.
    William N. Nettles,
    United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina; Alfred W.
    Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South
    Carolina; Mythili Raman, Acting Assistant Attorney General,
    Denis J. McInerney, Acting Deputy Assistant Attorney General,
    Thomas E. Booth, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    David Stuckey and Demario Covington pled guilty to one
    count of conspiracy to traffic in five kilograms or more of
    cocaine and 280 grams or more of crack cocaine.

    Stuckey was

    sentenced to 360 months imprisonment and Covington received a


    420-month sentence, a sentence Covington stipulated to pursuant
    to Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C) in an addendum to his plea
    agreement.

    Prior

    separately

    moved

    to

    to

    sentencing,

    withdraw

    their

    Stuckey
    guilty

    and

    Covington

    pleas.

    After

    conducting a hearing in each case, the district court denied the


    motions.

    Both men now appeal, challenging the denial of the

    motions to withdraw.
    courts

    denial

    representation.

    of

    Additionally, Stuckey appeals the district


    his

    counsels

    motion

    to

    withdraw

    from

    Finding no error, we affirm.

    We review a district courts denial of a motion to


    withdraw a guilty plea for abuse of discretion.
    v. Battle, 499 F.3d 315, 319 (4th Cir. 2007).

    United States
    In order to

    withdraw a guilty plea before sentencing, a defendant must show


    that a fair and just reason supports his request.
    Crim. P. 11(d)(2)(B).

    Fed. R.

    [A] fair and just reason . . . is one

    that essentially challenges . . . the fairness of the Rule 11


    proceeding.

    United States v. Lambey, 974 F.2d 1389, 1394 (4th

    Cir. 1992) (en banc).

    The defendant bears the heavy burden of

    demonstrating the existence of such a reason.

    United States v.

    ThompsonRiviere, 561 F.3d 345, 348 (4th Cir. 2009).


    In
    burden,

    determining
    district

    whether

    court

    must

    defendant

    consider

    has

    the

    met

    six

    this

    factors

    articulated in United States v. Moore, 931 F.2d 245, 248 (4th


    Cir. 1991).
    after

    We have reviewed the record in these cases and,

    carefully

    considering

    the

    factors

    described

    in

    Moore,

    conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in
    denying

    Stuckeys

    guilty pleas.
    (1977)

    1290,

    1299

    evidence

    of

    that

    sworn

    verity);

    (4th

    to

    Covingtons

    motions

    to

    withdraw

    their

    See also Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 74

    (holding

    presumption

    and

    Cir.

    the

    statements

    Fields

    1992)

    contrary,

    v.

    Attorney

    (Absent
    a

    carry

    clear

    defendant

    is

    Gen.,
    and

    strong
    956

    F.2d

    convincing

    bound

    by

    the

    representations he makes under oath during a plea colloquy.).


    Accordingly, we find that the district court correctly concluded
    that

    consideration

    of

    the

    Moore

    factors

    counseled

    against

    allowing Stuckey and Covington to withdraw their guilty pleas.


    Stuckey also challenges on appeal the district courts
    denial of his counsels motion to withdraw.
    guarantees

    that

    [i]n

    all

    criminal

    The Sixth Amendment

    prosecutions,

    the

    accused

    shall enjoy the right . . . to have the Assistance of Counsel


    for his defense.

    U.S. Const. amend. VI.

    Implicit in the Sixth

    Amendment is the right of a defendant to have counsel of his own


    4

    choosing.
    1994).

    United States v. Mullen, 32 F.3d 891, 895 (4th Cir.

    But this right is not absolute, and its exercise must

    not obstruct orderly judicial procedure and deprive courts of


    the

    exercise

    of

    administration

    of

    their

    inherent

    justice.

    power

    Id.

    to

    (internal

    control

    quotation

    the
    marks

    omitted).
    A

    defendant

    similarly

    substitution of counsel.
    allow

    defendant

    to

    Id.

    court

    substitute

    substitution

    of

    abused

    counsel

    Id.

    its

    counsel,

    no

    absolute

    right

    to

    Instead, the decision whether to

    discretion of the trial court.


    district

    has

    in

    the

    sound

    When determining whether a

    discretion

    this

    rests

    court

    in

    disallowing

    considers

    three

    the

    factors:

    (1) the timeliness of [the request]; (2) the adequacy of the


    courts inquiry into [defendants] complaint about counsel; and
    (3) whether [defendant] and his counsel experienced a total lack
    of communication preventing an adequate defense.

    United States

    v. Reevey, 364 F.3d 151, 156 (4th Cir. 2004) (internal quotation
    marks omitted).

    After reviewing the transcript of the hearing

    on counsels motion and with these standards in mind, we discern


    no

    abuse

    of

    discretion

    in

    the

    district

    courts

    denial

    of

    counsels motion to withdraw.


    Accordingly,
    convictions

    and

    we

    sentences.

    affirm
    We

    Stuckeys
    dispense

    and

    with

    Covingtons

    oral

    argument

    because the facts and legal conclusions are adequately presented


    5

    in the materials before this court and argument would not aid
    the decisional process.

    AFFIRMED

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy