United States v. Batemon, No. 13-3769 (8th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseBatemon, represented by court-appointed counsel, pleaded nolo contendere to distributing cocaine base, 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1). After the court announced his sentence, Batemon complained that his attorney had predicted a sentence of probation and failed to perform adequately, then declared that he was innocent. The district court relieved the attorney of his appointment and sentenced Batemon to 39 months’ imprisonment. The Eighth Circuit affirmed, rejecting arguments concerning the acceptance of the plea and the conduct of the sentencing hearing. The absence of counsel post-sentencing could not have caused prejudice. The district court apparently did err by failing to provide information required by Rule 11(b)(1)(M), but Batemon did not establish a reasonable probability that he would have proceeded to trial if the district court had satisfied the rule. The court did inform Batemon that he faced a maximum sentence of “not more than 20 years,” and told Batemon that he might “get time in the federal correction institution.” Batemon’s attorney stated that he had reviewed the sentencing guidelines with Batemon, estimated where Batemon would fall in the guidelines, and explained to Batemon how the guidelines work “in a generalized way.” Batemon confirmed counsel’s representation in open court.
Court Description: Criminal case - Criminal law. District court's action in relieving defendant's counsel of his appointment after the court imposed sentence on defendant did not prejudice defendant; an argument that defendant meant to move to withdraw his plea by his comments, in which he complained about counsel's handling of the case and asserted his innocence, and was prejudiced because an attorney would have better formulated the request, is rejected as Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(3) forbids the withdrawal of a plea after sentence is imposed; while the district court did not provide defendant the information required under Rule 11(b)(1)(M), defendant has failed to show that absent this error he would have proceeded to trial, and the error was harmless; while the district court did not technically comply with Rule 32(i)(1)(A)'s requirement that the court verify that defendant had read and discussed the presentence report with counsel, the error did not affect any substantial right.
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.