U.S. v. Stoller

Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea on bankruptcy fraud charge arising out of defendant’s failure to list in asset schedule fact that he controlled trust that owned property, even though defendant argued that his first appointed attorney coerced him into entering guilty plea based on promise that he would only receive sentence of probation. Defendant swore during plea colloquy that his plea was voluntary and raised only instant bare-bone coercion argument in Dist. Ct. during sentencing hearing. Ct. also rejected defendant’s claim that he was incompetent to enter into guilty plea due to his dementia, where both defendant’s first appointed counsel and prosecutor told Dist. Ct. that they had no reason to question his competency, and where second appointed counsel examined report of independent psychologist, who indicated that defendant was competent to plead guilty. Also, Dist. Ct.’s failure to strictly comply with Rule 11 during plea colloquy did not require reversal, where record otherwise indicated that defendant was fully apprised of his rights and consequences of his guilty plea.