U.S. v. Merrill

Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea to charges of producing and possessing child pornography, even though defendant argued that his trial counsel were ineffective for failing to explain elements of production of child pornography charge. Dist. Ct. held hearing and eventually denied defendant’s motion, after finding that contrary assertions made by defendant’s trial counsel were more credible. Ct. of Appeals rejected defendant’s contention that his attorneys were wrong when they told him that he could be convicted on production charge based on evidence that minor, at his request, “took and sent” to defendant sexually explicit photographs, where said evidence was sufficient to establish production charge. Also, defendant failed to establish any prejudice arising out of his trial counsel’s advice, where defendant’s post hoc assertion that he would not have pleaded guilty to production charge but for counsel’s bad advice was insufficient, by itself, to establish prejudice, especially where said advice was not deficient.