United States v. Trevino, No. 15-1534 (8th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseDefendant pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute and possess with intent to distribute more than 50 kilograms of marijuana. The district court subsequently denied defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea and denied defense counsel's motion to withdraw. The court upheld the district court's denial of defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea because the plea was based on defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel where the claim directly contradicts the statements defendant made under oath at his guilty plea hearing. The court concluded that the district court did not need to conduct an evidentiary hearing where defendant's motion failed to put forth a fair and just reason to withdraw the plea, provided no specific facts supporting a claim of ineffective assistance, and was directly contradicted by his statements under oath at the change-of-plea hearing. Furthermore, the district court did not err by not appointing substitute counsel where the claim of conflict of interest is without merit. Finally, the district court did not improperly coerce defendant into withdrawing his objections to the PSR’s drug quantity findings, and did not err in adopting the PSR’s drug quantity calculation. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Loken, Author, with Riley, Chief Judge, and Benton, Circuit Judge] Criminal case - Criminal law and sentencing. The district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea which was based on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel when such a claim was expressly contradicted by defendant's statements at the change-of-plea hearing; nor was the court obligated to hold an evidentiary hearing on the issue when defendant's motion failed to put forth a fair and just reason to withdraw the plea, failed to plead any specific facts supporting a claim of ineffective assistance and was directly contradicted by his statements in open court; the court did not err in denying defendant's motion for appointment of new counsel; the court did not improperly coerce defendant into withdrawing his objections to the PSR's drug quantity findings and did not err in adopting the PSR's drug quantity calculation.
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.