US v. Charles Bell, No. 14-4256 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-4256 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CHARLES HENRY BELL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:13-cr-00128-WO-1) Submitted: October 21, 2014 Decided: October 23, 2014 Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eugene E. Lester, III, SHARPLESS & STAVOLA, PA, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Ripley E. Rand, United States Attorney, JoAnna G. McFadden, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Charles Henry Bell pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to being a felon in possession of a firearm, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) imprisonment. (2012), and was sentenced to 51 months Bell appeals, challenging the district court s denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea and claiming ineffective assistance of counsel. Finding no error, we affirm. We review for abuse of discretion the district court s denial of a defendant s motion to withdraw his guilty plea. United States v. Nicholson, 676 F.3d 376, 383 (4th Cir. 2012). Before sentencing, a defendant may withdraw his guilty plea only by demonstrating United States a v. fair Bowman, and 348 just F.3d reason 408, (quoting Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(d)(2)(B)). 413 for (4th withdrawal. Cir. 2003) [A] fair and just reason for withdrawing a plea is one that essentially challenges . . . the fairness of the Rule 11 proceeding . . . . United States v. Lambey, 974 F.2d 1389, 1394 (4th Cir. 1992) (en banc). The defendant bears the heavy existence of such a reason. 561 F.3d 345, 348 (4th burden of demonstrating the United States v. Thompson Riviere, Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). A strong properly presumption conducted that the Rule plea is 11 colloquy final and raise[s] binding, a and therefore leaves a defendant with a very limited basis upon 2 which to have his plea withdrawn. (internal sworn quotation declarations marks during presumption of verity. Bowman, 348 F.3d at 414 omitted). the Moreover, plea colloquy a defendant s carry a strong Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 74 (1977). We have articulated a nonexclusive list of six factors to be considered in determining whether to permit withdrawal of a guilty plea. Cir. 1991). United States v. Moore, 931 F.2d 245, 248 (4th These factors include: (1) whether the defendant has offered credible evidence that his plea was unknowing or involuntary; (2) whether the defendant credibly asserted his legal innocence; (3) the extent of delay between entering the plea and filing the motion to withdraw the plea; (4) whether the defendant enjoyed the close assistance of competent counsel ; (5) whether withdrawal would prejudice the government; and (6) whether withdrawal would judicial resources. inconvenience the court and waste Nicholson, 676 F.3d at 384. Applying these factors, and upon careful review of the record, we find no abuse of discretion in the district court s conclusion that Bell failed to meet his burden to demonstrate a fair and just reason for withdrawal. We assistance conclusively decline of to counsel. appears on reach Bell s Unless the an face 3 claims attorney s of the of ineffective ineffectiveness record, ineffective assistance claims are not generally addressed on direct appeal. United States v. Benton, 523 F.3d 424, 435 (4th Cir. 2008). Instead, such pursuant to sufficient claims 28 should U.S.C. development be raised § 2255 (2012), of the record. in a in motion order United Baptiste, 596 F.3d 214, 216 n.1 (4th Cir. 2010). brought to permit States v. Because there is no conclusive evidence of ineffective assistance of counsel on the face of the record, we conclude that these claims should be raised, if at all, in a § 2255 motion. Accordingly, we affirm the district court s judgment. We dispense contentions with are oral argument adequately because presented in the facts and the materials legal before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 4
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.
