US v. Lucila Corea, No. 11-4447 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-4447 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. LUCILA RABADAN COREA, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:09-cv-00309-NCT-2) Submitted: December 15, 2011 Decided: December 19, 2011 Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eugene E. Lester, III, SHARPLESS & STAVOLA, PA, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Ripley Rand, United States Attorney, Sandra J. Hairston, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Lucila distribute Rabadan Corea methamphetamine imprisonment. pled was and guilty to sentenced conspiracy to 150 to months On appeal, she contends that the district court erred by denying her motion to withdraw her guilty plea and that counsel provided ineffective assistance. criminal judgment be vacated. She requests that her For the reasons that follow, we affirm. First, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Corea s motion to withdraw her guilty plea. United States v. Ubakanma, 215 F.3d 421, 424 (4th Cir. 2000) (providing standard of review). The court addressed the motion during a hearing, analyzed the six factors discussed in our decision in United States v. Moore, 931 F.2d 245, 248 (4th Cir. 1991), and found that none of the factors weighed in favor of allowing Corea to withdraw her plea. Additionally, while all the factors in Moore must be given appropriate weight, the key withdraw consideration should be in granted determining is whether whether the plea a motion hearing to was properly conducted under Fed. R. Crim. P. 11. United States v. Puckett, 61 F.3d 1092, 1099 (4th Cir. 1995). We conclude that Corea s plea hearing was conducted in compliance with Rule 11 and that Corea has failed to show a fair and just reason to 2 support her request to withdraw under Fed. R. Crim. P. violated her 11(d)(2)(B). Corea Sixth Amendment also contends right to that her effective attorney assistance coercing her to enter a guilty plea. of counsel by Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are generally not cognizable on direct appeal. Such claims are more appropriately raised in a motion filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. ยง 2255 (West Supp. 2011), unless counsel s ineffectiveness conclusively appears on the record. See United States v. Baldovinos, 434 F.3d 233, 239 (4th Cir. 2006); United States v. Richardson, 195 F.3d 192, 198 (4th Cir. 1999). After review of the record, we find no conclusive evidence that counsel rendered ineffective assistance, and we accordingly decline to consider this claim on direct appeal. We of of course intimate no view as to the validity or lack validity in respect to any claim of ineffective assistance. We motion to dispense affirm withdraw with oral the her district plea argument and court s affirm because denial her the of Corea s conviction. facts and We legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3
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.
