United States v. Carson

32 F.4th 615

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.Charles CARSON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 21-3780

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Decided and Filed: April 27, 2022

ON BRIEF: Frederick D. Benton, Jr., FREDERICK D. BENTON, JR. L.P.A., Columbus, Ohio, for Appellant. Kimberly Robinson, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellee.

Before: BATCHEDLER, COLE, and GIBBONS, Circuit Judges.

JULIA SMITH GIBBONS, Circuit Judge.

Charles Carson pled guilty to engaging in a racketeering conspiracy. In this direct appeal, he argues that his attorney provided ineffective assistance of counsel prior to his guilty plea and that the district court abused its discretion by denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. We analyze the merits of the ineffective assistance of counsel claim because the factual record is sufficiently developed, reject Carson's ineffective assistance of counsel claims, and affirm the district court's denial of Carson's motion to withdraw his guilty plea.

I

Carson was indicted for engaging in a racketeering conspiracy, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d), and for murder in aid of racketeering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1959(a)(1). Carson and his eighteen codefendants were members of the Trevitt and Atcheson Crips, a criminal organization that engaged in murder, attempted murder, drug trafficking, firearms trafficking, witness tampering, robbery, assault, and other crimes in the Columbus, Ohio area. The district court appointed Kristin Burkett and Andrew Sanderson to represent Carson.

In February 2019, Carson signed a plea agreement in which he agreed to plead guilty to Count I, racketeering conspiracy. Carson and the United States also agreed to a 360-month prison term pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C). At the time, Carson was serving a seven-year sentence on a 2015 state conviction for aggravated robbery, and the plea agreement specified that the sentence in this case would run concurrent to the state sentence. On January 3, 2020, after Carson signed the plea agreement but before his change of plea hearing, the government filed a Notice of Intent to Not Seek the Death Penalty. Between the notice's filing and Carson's plea hearing, Sanderson met with Carson and discussed the notice twice.

At Carson's change of plea hearing, the magistrate judge conducted an inquiry into Carson's understanding of the plea and its consequences. Carson agreed that he understood the conspiracy charge was punishable by a term of life imprisonment, and he confirmed that he "understood every term of the plea agreement," that he "agree[d] with the terms of the plea agreement," and that no one "made any other or different promises or assurances of any kind to persuade [him] to plead guilty." DE 561, Plea Tr., Page ID 1967–68, 1981. The magistrate judge found Carson to be "fully competent and capable of entering an informed plea" and found his plea to be knowing and voluntary. Id . at 1983. Carson did not object to the magistrate judge's findings or conclusions. After Carson pled guilty on February 12, 2020, the district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation and accepted the plea.

Carson filed a pro se motion to withdraw his plea on August 5, 2020, arguing that he "entered a plea of guilty before [he] fully understood what [he] was actually saying [he] was guilty of," and that he entered the plea because he thought he would otherwise receive the death penalty. DE 557, Mot., Page ID 1938. His counsel filed a formal motion to withdraw the plea a week later. The district court held a conference on the motion, denied it, and reset the matter for sentencing.

Eight days before Carson's rescheduled sentencing, he mailed a letter to the district court, again attempting to withdraw his guilty plea and asserting an ineffective assistance of counsel argument for the first time. During the rescheduled sentencing hearing, on October 28, 2020, the district court heard further argument from Carson, his counsel, and the government regarding Carson's desire to remove counsel and withdraw his guilty plea. At this hearing, Sanderson stated that before Carson pled guilty, "he likely advised" Carson that he would only serve seventeen years in prison. United States v. Carson , No. 2:18-cr-204(2), 2021 WL 2581300, at *3 (S.D. Ohio June 23, 2021) (noting that Sanderson was not speaking under oath). The district court reiterated its previous denial of Carson's motion to withdraw his guilty plea and relieved counsel. The district court appointed new counsel and rescheduled the case for sentencing.

At the second rescheduled sentencing hearing, on March 4, 2021, the district court again heard arguments regarding Carson's motion to withdraw his plea. As the district court began to grant Carson's motion, the government requested an evidentiary hearing. Id . at *4 (explaining that the district court was discussing the confusion in the record about what Carson understood when he pled guilty such that withdrawal was warranted when the government requested an evidentiary hearing). On April 13, 2021, the district court held an evidentiary hearing to determine whether Sanderson advised Carson that the plea agreement would result in Carson's serving only seventeen years and whether this misunderstanding was a basis of his decision to plead guilty.

At the evidentiary hearing, Carson testified consistently with his prior statements that Sanderson told him pleading guilty would result in an actual sentence of only seventeen years and he pled guilty based on that understanding. Sanderson testified that, despite the representations he made at the October hearing, his notes did not reflect ever discussing good-time credit with Carson. Additionally, Sanderson disavowed that the seventeen years calculation arose during discussions with Carson about credit for time served. Sanderson also testified that during all his discussions with Carson about withdrawing his guilty plea, Carson never mentioned a misunderstanding about thirty years versus seventeen years as a basis for wanting to withdraw his plea.

After the evidentiary hearing, the district court determined Carson was not "operating under a misunderstanding when he entered into his plea." Carson , 2021 WL 2581300, at *5. Despite the "muddy" record regarding what exactly Sanderson told Carson as to the amount of actual time to be served, the district court found Carson's argument "particularly undercut" by Sanderson's notes not mentioning the possibility of serving only seventeen years and Carson's failure to raise any misunderstanding about the alleged discrepancy with his counsel before the October hearing. Id . at *6. The district court further found that Sanderson had told Carson that the government was not seeking the death penalty prior to Carson's entering the guilty plea. The district court therefore concluded the circumstances surrounding Carson's plea continued to weigh against withdrawal.

The district court imposed a 360-month term of imprisonment to run concurrent to the undischarged portion of Carson's state term. Carson appeals the district court's final judgment and its opinion and order declining to reconsider his second motion to withdraw his guilty plea.

II

Carson's direct appeal asserts ineffective assistance of counsel and challenges the district court's denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. He argues that Sanderson, his counsel at the plea stage, was ineffective because Sanderson allegedly told him the thirty-year sentence would result in an actual sentence of seventeen years and because Sanderson allegedly told him he would face the death penalty if he did not plead guilty. We address the merits of Carson's ineffective assistance of counsel claims because the factual record is sufficiently developed, reject Carson's length-of-incarceration argument because he cannot demonstrate deficient performance or prejudice, and reject Carson's death penalty argument because he cannot show deficient performance. Carson also challenges the district court's initial denial and declination to reconsider its denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Because the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to allow Carson to withdraw his guilty plea, we affirm.

A

Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are ordinarily not addressed on direct appeal because "the record is usually insufficient to permit an adequate review." United States v. Gardner , 417 F.3d 541, 545 (6th Cir. 2005) (holding alleged ineffectiveness of counsel was not apparent because the record "contain[ed] no evidence regarding what advice, if any, ... counsel provided"). But "[a]n exception to this principle exists for cases in which the record is adequately developed to allow the court to properly assess the merits of the issue." United States v. Fortson , 194 F.3d 730, 736 (6th Cir. 1999). The record may be adequate for review on direct appeal when the district court held an evidentiary hearing on a motion to withdraw a guilty plea at which both parties presented evidence on the ineffective assistance of counsel claim at issue on appeal. United States v. Wynn , 663 F.3d 847, 850–51 (6th Cir. 2011). Ineffective assistance of counsel claims are mixed questions of law and fact that we review de novo. Fortson , 194 F.3d at 736.

Both Carson and the government agree that the record is sufficiently developed to allow proper consideration of Carson's ineffective assistance claims. The district court held an evidentiary hearing in April 2021 related to Carson's renewed motion to withdraw his guilty plea due to ineffective assistance of counsel, at which time both parties presented evidence on all ineffective assistance of counsel claims at issue on appeal. At this hearing, the district court heard testimony from Carson and Sanderson on Carson's claims that Sanderson told him that "a 30-year sentence [would] result in an actual period of...