United States v. Sisk, No. 20-1478 (8th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's request to take back his guilty plea to bank robbery. The court concluded that, by failing to object to his first attorney's performance during the plea hearing, defendant foreclosed using the ineffective-assistance-of-counsel route to plea-withdrawal.
The court concluded that defendant's 210-month sentence was substantively reasonable where the district court weighed the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) sentencing factors, including defendant's mitigating factors, and provided a reasonable basis for its sentence. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing defendant.
Court Description: [Grasz, Author, with Loken and Kobes, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law and sentencing. The district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea; by failing to object to his first attorney's performance during the plea hearing, defendant foreclosed the ineffective-assistance-of-counsel route to plea-withdrawal; defendant's sentence was substantively reasonable, as the district court considered his arguments, made an individualized assessment under the facts, applied the 3553(a) factors, and provided a reasonable basis for its sentencing decision. [ June 02, 2021 ]
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.