United States v. White Owl, No. 18-2695 (8th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for abusive sexual contact. Defendant moved to withdraw his guilty plea on the ground that he did not fully understand some of its consequences.
The court held that defendant was specifically informed of the registration and restitution consequences of his conviction; defendant had fair notice that participating in sex offender treatment could be a condition of his supervised release; defendant's desire to avoid sex offender treatment was not a fair and just ground for withdrawing his plea for another reason: the district court did not order such treatment; and the court declined to address defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. Because defendant never offered attorney performance as a ground for withdrawing his guilty plea, remand for an evidentiary hearing was not warranted.
Court Description: Colloton, Author, with Beam and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal case. The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea as defendant had fair notice of the terms of the plea agreement, including registration as a sex offender, participation in treatment and the payment of restitution, and his claim he did not understand the consequences of his plea is not supported by the record; court would not consider a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel as such a claim should be brought in a Section 2255 proceeding.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.