United States v. Stewart ( 2001 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-40285
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
WILLIAM EDWARD STEWART,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 1:99-CR-26-1
--------------------
May 17, 2001
Before DAVIS, JONES, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
William Edward Stewart appeals his guilty-plea conviction
for money laundering. Stewart contends that he received
ineffective legal assistance from L. Mickele Daniels, the
attorney who represented him through the entry of his guilty
plea, and that the district court erred in denying his motion to
withdraw his guilty plea.
This court generally declines to review claims of
ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal, unless the
claims were adequately raised in the district court. United
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
No. 00-40285
-2-
States v. Gibson, 55 F.3d 173, 179 (5th Cir. 1995). This court
has "undertaken to resolve claims of inadequate representation on
direct appeal only in rare cases where the record allowed [this
court] to evaluate fairly the merits of the claim." United
States v. Higdon, 832 F.2d 312, 314 (5th Cir. 1987). Ineffective
assistance claims have been resolved on direct appeal “only when
the record has provided substantial details about the attorney’s
conduct.” United States v. Bounds, 943 F.2d 541, 544 (5th Cir.
1991).
While Stewart’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea did raise
a claim that Daniels provided ineffective assistance, that claim
was not based upon Daniels’ alleged conflict of interest, which
is the basis of Stewart’s ineffective assistance claim on appeal.
The record on appeal does not substantially detail, or even
identify, Daniels’ alleged conflict of interest. Because we
cannot fairly evaluate the merits of Stewart’s ineffective
assistance claim, we decline to address the claim, without
prejudice to Stewart’s right to raise it in a proper proceeding
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See Higdon, 832 F.2d at 314.
The district court may grant a motion to withdraw a guilty
plea before a defendant is sentenced if the defendant shows “any
fair and just reason.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(e). A motion to
withdraw a guilty plea is committed to the discretion of the
district court and its decision will not be disturbed absent an
abuse of discretion. United States v. Still, 102 F.3d 118, 123
(5th Cir. 1996). The burden of establishing a fair and just
reason for withdrawing a guilty plea rests at all times on the
No. 00-40285
-3-
defendant. Id. at 124. Factors to consider in applying the
standard of a fair and just reason are: (1) whether the
defendant asserted his innocence; (2) whether withdrawal would
prejudice the Government; (3) whether the defendant delayed in
filing the motion; (4) whether withdrawal would substantially
inconvenience the court; (5) whether close assistance of counsel
was available; (6) whether the plea was knowing and voluntary;
and (7) whether withdrawal would waste judicial resources. See
United States v. Brewster, 137 F.3d 853, 857 (5th Cir. 1998);
United States v. Carr, 740 F.2d 339, 343-44 (5th Cir. 1984).
An evaluation of the above factors indicates that Stewart
has failed to demonstrate a fair and just reason for withdrawing
his guilty plea. See Brewster, 137 F.3d at 858; Still, 102 F.3d
at 124. Therefore, the district court did not abuse its
discretion in denying Stewart’s motion to withdraw his plea. See
Still, 102 F.3d at 123.
The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.