United States v. Norvell, No. 12-3415 (8th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CaseDefendant appealed the district court's denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea after he pleaded guilty to drug offenses. The court concluded that defendant's misunderstanding that he was guaranteed the ability to attend the Minnesota Teen Challenge, a long-term, faith-based chemical dependency program, did not permit withdrawal of the plea where the district court never directly said that Teen Challenge was not a part of the plea agreement, just not a part of the sentence; the record and presentence investigation report amply supported a determination that defendant likely committed the offenses; defendant had enough time to reach and consider the plea agreement; defendant's counsel's performance did not violate Lafler v. Cooper; and defendant's failure to object to counsel's performance precluded his ineffective assistance claim. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.
Court Description: Criminal case - Criminal case. Defendant was told that assignment to a particular program was not guaranteed, and his alleged misunderstanding about the program was not grounds for withdrawing his guilty plea; there was a factual basis for the plea; no other factors justified withdrawal of the plea, and the district court did not err in denying the motion to withdraw the plea; claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was properly denied. Judge Bright, dissenting on the ground that the fact that court might reject defendant's assignment to the program was not fully explained to him.
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.