E.D.Va.: Gant not sufficient reason to permit withdrawal of unconditional plea

The fact Gant was decided after defendant unconditionally pled guilty did not form a basis for allowing him to withdraw his plea. United States v. Darcus, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109950 (E.D. Va. November 24, 2009)*:

Darcus argues that, wholly apart from the Moore factors, the decision in Gant provides a basis on which he should be permitted to withdraw his guilty plea. Generally, courts have held that the decision in Gant does not provide a fair and just reason for withdrawal of a guilty plea. See Monroe, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51389, 2009 WL 1749374, at *2 (“[T]he Supreme Court’s decision in Gant has not been held to constitute ‘a fair and just reasons for requesting the withdrawal’ of a guilty plea.”); Mays, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21165, 2009 WL 536912, at * 2 (“In this Court’s view, [Gant] does not constitute a fair and just reason to withdraw the plea.”). Rather, Gant may only provide a fair and just reason where the Government concedes that it does, or the guilty plea was conditional. See United States v. Megginson, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 19296, 2009 WL 2461856 (4th Cir. Aug. 12, 2009) (allowing the suppression of evidence based on the retroactive application of Gant when Darcus [sic] entered a conditional plea); United States v. Williams, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48077, 2009 WL 1607624, at *1 (E.D. Mich. June 2, 2009) (allowing withdrawal when the Government conceded that it was fair and just).

Darcus’ plea of guilty was not conditioned on his ability to challenge the denial of his motions to suppress. Nor has the government conceded that Darcus should be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea. As a result, Darcus’ argument that the change in law alone should allow him to withdraw his guilty plea does weigh in favor of withdrawal.

Defendant was apparently involved in a hand-to-hand drug deal where he was sitting in his car at gas pumps in a high crime area but buying no gas. When the officer frisked him and no gun was found, the reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing was still not dispelled under the facts. Hicks v. State, 189 Md. App. 112, 984 A.2d 246 (2009).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.