U.S. v. Fears

Dist. Ct. denied defendant’s pro se motion to withdraw his guilty plea, even though defendant argued that his plea was not knowing and voluntary since his trial counsel allegedly pressured him to plead guilty. Dist. Ct. thereafter sentenced defendant to 30=year term of incarceration on charges of conspiracy to commit sex-trafficking and one substantive count of sex-trafficking. Instant plea agreement contained appellate waiver, but defendant nevertheless filed instant appeal, arguing that said agreement was void for lack of consideration. Appellate Court, though, found that plea agreement contained adequate consideration (and thus dismissed appeal based on said waiver), where agreement allowed defendant to plead guilty to fewer and lesser charges and gave defendant opportunity to receive reduced sentence through both one-point reduction application for acceptance of responsibility and Rule 35(b) motion for reduction in sentence based on defendant’s substantial assistance given to government after sentencing. Fact that defendant did not receive either reduction did not make agreement illusory, since although there is prosecutorial discretion when deciding whether to seek either reduction on defendant’s behalf, decision on whether to seek said reductions is not entirely discretionary and is subject to potential judicial redress if prosecutor fails to use good-faith when making decision.