Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

defendantappealpleamotioncriminal procedureguilty plea

Related Cases

United States v. Graf, 827 F.3d 581

Facts

Dante Graf was observed selling counterfeit U.S. currency to an informant and subsequently pled guilty to one charge under 18 U.S.C. § 473. After his plea was accepted, Graf absconded and was later re-arrested. He then sought to withdraw his guilty plea, claiming he was unaware of the possibility of filing a motion to compel the government to disclose the informant's identity, which he believed could have affected his decision to plead guilty.

Dante Graf was observed selling counterfeit U.S. currency to an informant and subsequently pled guilty to one charge under 18 U.S.C. § 473.

Issue

Did the district court abuse its discretion in denying Graf's motion to withdraw his guilty plea?

Rule

Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(d)(2)(B), a defendant may withdraw a guilty plea after acceptance but before sentencing if they can show a fair and just reason for the withdrawal.

Analysis

The court found that Graf's desire to withdraw his plea was based on a tactical decision rather than any claim of innocence or a lack of understanding of the plea. The court emphasized that a plea is a serious commitment and that Graf's motion did not challenge the factual basis of his guilt. The court concluded that allowing withdrawal based on a desire to pursue a new defense strategy would undermine the integrity of the plea process.

The court found that Graf's desire to withdraw his plea was based on a tactical decision rather than any claim of innocence or a lack of understanding of the plea.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's denial of Graf's motion to withdraw his guilty plea, finding no abuse of discretion.

Who won?

The United States prevailed in the case because the court upheld the district court's decision to deny Graf's motion to withdraw his guilty plea, affirming that he did not provide a valid reason for the withdrawal.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

United States v. Moyer, Not Reported in Fed. Supp., 2017 WL 2266906

Marek v. Chesny, 473 U.S. 1, 105 S.Ct. 3012, 87 L.Ed.2d 1, 38 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 124, 37 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 35,396, 53 USLW 4903, 1 Fed.R.Serv.3d 1297

United States v. Wheat, 988 F.3d 299

Nix v. Whiteside, 475 U.S. 157, 106 S.Ct. 988, 89 L.Ed.2d 123, 54 USLW 4194

Holloway v. Arkansas, 435 U.S. 475, 98 S.Ct. 1173, 55 L.Ed.2d 426