Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 107 views

    United States v. Thomas Bandzul, 11th Cir. (2016)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The defendant, Thomas Bandzul, appealed the denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea for one count of wire fraud. The appellate court found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion. Specifically, the district court had conducted an extensive plea colloquy where Bandzul stated he understood the charges and was satisfied with his counsel, creating a strong presumption that his plea was knowing and voluntary. As Bandzul did not meet his burden to prove his plea colloquy statements were false, the district court was within its discretion to deny the motion to withdraw the plea without an evidentiary hearing. The appellate court affirmed the district court's ruling.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    United States v. Thomas Bandzul, 11th Cir. (2016)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    107 views5 pages
    The defendant, Thomas Bandzul, appealed the denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea for one count of wire fraud. The appellate court found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion. Specifically, the district court had conducted an extensive plea colloquy where Bandzul stated he understood the charges and was satisfied with his counsel, creating a strong presumption that his plea was knowing and voluntary. As Bandzul did not meet his burden to prove his plea colloquy statements were false, the district court was within its discretion to deny the motion to withdraw the plea without an evidentiary hearing. The appellate court affirmed the district court's ruling.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2016-06-16 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 15-13531

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The defendant, Thomas Bandzul, appealed the denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea for one count of wire fraud. The appellate court found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion. Specifically, the district court had conducted an extensive plea colloquy where Bandzul stated he understood the charges and was satisfied with his counsel, creating a strong presumption that his plea was knowing and voluntary. As Bandzul did not meet his burden to prove his plea colloquy statements were false, the district court was within its discretion to deny the motion to withdraw the plea without an evidentiary hearing. The appellate court affirmed the district court's ruling.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    107 views5 pages

    United States v. Thomas Bandzul, 11th Cir. (2016)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The defendant, Thomas Bandzul, appealed the denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea for one count of wire fraud. The appellate court found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion. Specifically, the district court had conducted an extensive plea colloquy where Bandzul stated he understood the charges and was satisfied with his counsel, creating a strong presumption that his plea was knowing and voluntary. As Bandzul did not meet his burden to prove his plea colloquy statements were false, the district court was within its discretion to deny the motion to withdraw the plea without an evidentiary hearing. The appellate court affirmed the district court's ruling.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 5

    Case: 15-13531

    Date Filed: 06/16/2016

    Page: 1 of 5

    [DO NOT PUBLISH]

    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
    ________________________
    No. 15-13531
    Non-Argument Calendar
    ________________________
    D.C. Docket No. 3:14-cr-00013-HLA-JBT-1

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    versus
    THOMAS BANDZUL,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    ________________________
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Middle District of Florida
    ________________________
    (June 16, 2016)
    Before WILSON, ROSENBAUM, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:
    Thomas Bandzul appeals his conviction on one count of wire fraud, in

    Case: 15-13531

    Date Filed: 06/16/2016

    Page: 2 of 5

    violation of 18 U.S.C. 1342 and 2. On appeal, Bandzul argues that the district
    court abused its discretion in denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea.
    We review the district courts denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea
    for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Brehm, 442 F.3d 1291, 1298 (11th Cir.
    2006). The district court does not abuse its discretion unless its denial is arbitrary
    or unreasonable. Id. We likewise review for abuse of discretion a district courts
    decision about whether to hold an evidentiary hearing. Id. Further, a district court
    does not err in failing to hold an evidentiary hearing on a motion to withdraw a
    guilty plea where the court engaged in extensive Rule 11 inquiries prior to
    accepting the defendants plea. See United States v. Stitzer, 785 F.2d 1506, 1514
    (11th Cir. 1986).
    Defendants seeking to withdraw a guilty plea prior to sentencing must show
    that there is a fair and just reason for doing so. Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(d)(2)(B).
    Whether a defendants motion to withdraw shows a fair and just reason is to be
    liberally construed; however, the decision to allow withdrawal is left to the sound
    discretion of the trial court, and the district court may be reversed only if its
    decision is arbitrary or unreasonable. United States v. Buckles, 843 F.2d 460, 471
    (11th Cir 1988).
    In determining whether a defendant has met his burden to show a fair and
    just reason to withdraw a guilty plea, a district court may consider the totality of
    2

    Case: 15-13531

    Date Filed: 06/16/2016

    Page: 3 of 5

    the circumstances surrounding the plea, including whether: (1) close assistance of
    counsel was available, (2) the plea was knowing and voluntary, (3) judicial
    resources would be conserved, and (4) the government would be prejudiced if the
    defendant were allowed to withdraw his plea. Id. at 471-72. However, the district
    court is not required to find prejudice to the government. Id. at 474. If an
    appellant does not satisfy the first two factors of the Buckles analysis, we need not
    give particular attention to the remaining factors. United States v. GonzalezMercado, 808 F.2d 796, 801 (11th Cir. 1987). We also have noted that the timing
    of [an] appellants motion to withdraw also deserves . . . consideration. An
    appellant should not be allowed to circumvent the finality of Rule 11 when the
    motion to withdraw is filed because of an anticipated harsher-than-contemplated
    sentence. Id. (citations and quotations omitted).
    Additionally, the good faith, credibility and weight of a defendants
    assertions in support of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea are issues for the trial
    court to decide. Brehm, 442 F.3d at 1298 (quotation omitted). Statements made
    under oath by a defendant during a plea colloquy receive a strong presumption of
    truthfulness. United States v. Medlock, 12 F.3d 185, 187 (11th Cir. 1994).
    Consequently, a defendant bears a heavy burden to show that his statements under
    oath were false. United States v. Rogers, 848 F.2d 166, 168 (11th Cir. 1988).

    Case: 15-13531

    Date Filed: 06/16/2016

    Page: 4 of 5

    Here, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Bandzuls
    motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Bandzul had the close assistance of counsel
    prior to and during his guilty plea hearing. In his plea hearing, Bandzul stated that
    he had discussed his case and constitutional rights with his attorney and was
    satisfied with his lawyers representation. Bandzul also stated that he had
    reviewed the indictment and the plea agreement with his attorney, and he
    understood the documents. He also had no complaints about his attorneys
    representation of him. There is a strong presumption that Bandzuls statements
    made under oath during his plea hearing were true, and he has not met his heavy
    burden of proving those statements false. See Medlock, 12 F.3d at 187; Rogers,
    848 F.2d at 168. Bandzul also admitted to the factual allegations proffered at the
    plea hearing and did not raise any objection. Consequently, it was well within the
    district courts sound discretion to discredit Bandzuls contrary allegations in
    connection with his later motion to withdraw his guilty plea. See Brehm, 442 F.3d
    at 1298; Buckles, 843 F.2d at 471-72.
    In light of the extensive Rule 11 inquiries made during the plea hearing, the
    district court was not required to hear Bandzuls testimony before denying his
    motion to withdraw his plea. Further, Bandzul moved to withdraw his plea
    approximately ten months after entering his plea. See Stitzer, 785 F.2d at 1514.
    As such, the district court did not err, and we affirm.
    4

    Case: 15-13531

    Date Filed: 06/16/2016

    AFFIRMED.

    Page: 5 of 5

    You might also like