Fiorito v. United States, No. 15-2319 (8th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CasePetitioner pleaded guilty to one count of mail fraud and the district court subsequently granted his request to withdraw his guilty plea. Petitioner proceeded to trial and was convicted. Petitioner then filed a motion collaterally attacking his conviction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255, arguing, inter alia, that the district court violated his Sixth Amendment right to counsel by considering and granting his pro se request to withdraw his guilty plea without first conducting a hearing under Faretta v. California. The court rejected petitioner's claim but granted a certificate of appealability. The court held that petitioner was not deprived of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel when the district court granted his pro se request to withdraw his guilty plea. The record clearly shows that petitioner’s alleged waiver was knowing and intelligent. Further, the record from petitioner's four-day evidentiary hearing on his section 2255 motion shows that he understood the danger of abandoning his plea agreement. In this case, petitioner's lawyer repeatedly advised him against withdrawing his plea and warned him that he would receive a substantially longer sentence if he went to trial. Even without counsel's advice, the circumstances show that petitioner had sufficient knowledge to make an informed choice whether to withdraw his plea. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Gruender, Author, with Murphy and Beam, Circuit Judges] Prisoner case - Habeas. The district court did not violate Fiorito's Sixth Amendment right to counsel when it granted his pro se request to withdraw his guilty plea without a hearing; because Fiorito was represented by counsel and received counsel's advice, he did not waive his right to counsel and the district court had no duty to conduct a Faretta hearing; the record at the Section 2255 hearing showed Fiorito understood the dangers of abandoning his plea agreement as his lawyer repeatedly advised him against withdrawing the plea and warned him he faced a substantially longer sentence if he went to trial.
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.