US v. Delfon Hare, No. 08-4714 (4th Cir. 2009)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-4714 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DELFON LEBREW HARE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, District Judge. (8:07-cr-00189-RWT-1) Submitted: March 10, 2009 Decided: March 26, 2009 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Timothy J. Sullivan, BRENNAN SULLIVAN & MCKENNA, LLP, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellant. Deborah A. Johnston, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Delfon Lebrew Hare pleaded guilty pursuant to a written plea agreement to two counts of possession with intent to distribute fifty grams or more of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) (2006). Counsel has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). On appeal, Hare contends that the district court erred in denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Finding no error, we affirm. We review a district court s denial of a motion to withdraw a States v. guilty plea 215 Ubakanma, for abuse F.3d 421, of 424 discretion. (4th Cir. United 2000). A defendant does not have an absolute right to withdraw a guilty plea. 2003). United States v. Bowman, 348 F.3d 408, 413 (4th Cir. Once the district court has accepted a defendant s guilty plea, the defendant bears the burden of showing a fair and just reason for withdrawing his guilty plea. Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(d)(2)(B); United States v. Battle, 499 F.3d 315, 319 (4th Cir. 2007). essentially [A] fair and just reason . . . is one that challenges proceeding . . . . . . . the fairness of the Rule 11 United States v. Lambey, 974 F.2d 1389, 1394 (4th Cir. 1992). In deciding whether to permit a defendant to withdraw his guilty plea, a district court should consider: 2 (1) whether the defendant has offered credible evidence that his plea was not knowing or not voluntary, (2) whether the defendant has credibly asserted his legal innocence, (3) whether there has been a delay between the entering of the plea and the filing of the motion, (4) whether defendant has had close assistance of competent counsel, (5) whether withdrawal will cause prejudice to the government, and (6) whether it will inconvenience the court and waste judicial resources. United States v. Moore, 931 F.2d 245, 248 (4th Cir. 1991). The first, second, and fourth of the Moore factors carry the most weight in these defendant has expectations. Cir. 1995). considerations, a good reason as they concern to upset whether settled the systemic United States v. Sparks, 67 F.3d 1145, 1154 (4th However, an appropriately conducted Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 proceeding raise[s] a strong presumption that the plea is final and binding, Lambey, 974 F.2d at 1394, as statements made during a plea hearing carry a strong presumption of verity, Blackledge properly v. Allison, conducted Rule 431 11 U.S. 63, guilty 74 (1977). a colloquy plea Thus, leaves a defendant with a very limited basis upon which to have his plea Bowman, 348 F.3d at 414. withdrawn. In court s reviewing articulated withdraw, discretion we in reasons conclude its the that denial. Moore factors and for denying Hare s the court The record did the not discloses district motion to abuse its that the district court s Rule 11 colloquy was extensive, and Hare does 3 not contend on appeal that the court improperly conducted the proceeding or that it was deficient in any particular respect. Accordingly, the guilty plea is afforded a strong presumption of validity. The district court, however, appropriately focused on the fourth Moore factor as Hare s main contention was that, but for counsel s deficient performance of pressuring him to plead guilty and asserting he may receive a life sentence by going to trial, he would not have entered a guilty plea. To show a fair and just reason to withdraw a plea based on ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must demonstrate: objective (1) that his counsel s performance fell below an standard of reasonableness and (2) that he was prejudiced in the sense that there was a reasonable probability that, but for counsel s error, he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial. 1394 (internal omitted). fell quotation marks, Lambey, 974 F.2d at alterations and citation Here, Hare fails to demonstrate counsel s performance below an objective standard of reasonableness. In particular, counsel s advice regarding Hare s potential sentence was correct. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Hare s conviction and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform Hare, in writing, of the right to 4 petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Hare requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in representation. this court for leave to withdraw from Counsel s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Hare. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions the court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. AFFIRMED 5

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.