USA v. Timothy Washington

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [09-31107 Affirmed ] Judge: WED , Judge: JES , Judge: LHS Mandate pull date is 09/30/2010 for Appellant Timothy L. Washington [09-31107]

USA v. Timothy Washington

Doc. 0

Case: 09-31107

Document: 00511228554

Page: 1

Date Filed: 09/09/2010

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED
N o . 09-31107 S u m m a r y Calendar September 9, 2010 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk

U N IT E D STATES OF AMERICA, P la in t if f -A p p e lle e , versu s T IM O T H Y L. WASHINGTON, Also Known as Timothy S. Washington, D e fe n d a n t -A p p e lla n t .

A p p e a ls from the United States District Court fo r the Middle District of Louisiana N o . 3:08-CR-103-1

B e fo r e DAVIS, SMITH, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. P E R CURIAM:*

T im o t h y Washington pleaded guilty, without benefit of a written plea a g r e e m e n t, to being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C.

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

*

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 09-31107

Document: 00511228554 Page: 2 No. 09-31107

Date Filed: 09/09/2010

§ 922(g)(1). After pleading guilty but before he was sentenced, Washington m o v e d to withdraw his plea when a video recording of the traffic stop that led to h is arrest surfaced. He argued that the video would have provided a basis for m o v in g to suppress evidence. The district court denied the motion, and Washin g t o n appeals that ruling. W e review the denial of a motion to withdraw a plea for abuse of discret io n . United States v. Conroy, 567 F.3d 174, 177 (5th Cir. 2009), cert. denied, 130 S . Ct. 1502 (2010). Washington argues that his guilty plea was not knowing and v o lu n t a r y because his decision was based on incomplete information, but he has n o t identified a single deviation from Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11. See Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 244 (1969); United States v. Reyes, 300 F .3 d 555, 558 (5th Cir. 2002). In addition, Washington has not asserted his inn o c e n c e but admitted his guilt under oath. See Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 6 3 , 74 (1977). The district court found that the government would not suffer prejudice if the withdrawal motion were granted. Close assistance of counsel was availa b le to Washington when he decided to plead guilty. Although Washington filed h is motion promptly after receiving a copy of the video recording, and the district c o u r t found that it would not be substantially inconvenienced by granting the m o t io n to withdraw, the court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion in light of all of the relevant factors. See United States v. Carr, 740 F.2d 339, 3 4 3 -4 4 (5th Cir. 1984). T o the extent that Washington argues that withdrawal should have been g r a n t e d because the government breached a duty to disclose the video recording, t h e argument is unavailing. See Conroy, 567 F.3d at 178. In rejecting the argum en t that a defendant must always be aware of impeachment information before pleading guilty, the Supreme Court noted "the random way in which such inform a t io n may, or may not, help a particular defendant" and that the Constitution " p e r m it s a court to accept a guilty plea, with its accompanying waiver of various 2

Case: 09-31107

Document: 00511228554 Page: 3 No. 09-31107

Date Filed: 09/09/2010

c o n s t it u t io n a l rights, despite various forms of misapprehension under which a d e fe n d a n t might labor," including circumstances in which a defendant's attorney " m is ju d g e d the admissibility of a confession" or "failed to find a potential constit u t i o n a l infirmity in grand jury proceedings." United States v. Ruiz, 536 U.S. 6 2 2 , 630-31 (2002) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). In addition, a guilty plea generally waives Fourth Amendment claims. United States v. Wise, 1 7 9 F.3d 184, 186 (5th Cir. 1999). A F F IR M E D .

3