Articles Tagged with withdraw guilty plea

u-s-supreme-court-1-1221080The first part of this three part series discussed the current state of the District of Columbia’s gun laws. The second part will discuss the process involved in attempting to withdraw a guilty plea in DC Superior Court and the pros and cons of attempting to get your plea withdrawn.

Ordinarily, moving to withdraw a guilty plea is a very difficult process. Many defense attorneys refer to the process for withdrawing a guilty plea as “pulling teeth.” However, given the negative consequences associated with having a criminal conviction on your record, and the current successful challenges to the District’s gun laws, it may be worth it to go through the process.

The law disfavors a defendant withdrawing a guilty plea. Imagine every time someone plead guilty and did not like the sentence then cases would never have finality. The rule that governs the withdrawal of a guilty plea is D.C. Criminal Rule 11 (e), which states:

A motion to withdraw a plea of guilty or of nolo contendere may be made only before sentence is imposed or imposition of sentence is suspended; but to correct manifest injustice, the Court after sentence may set aside the judgment of conviction and permit the defendant to withdraw the plea.

The plain text of the rule indicates that it is easier to withdraw a guilty plea before an individual is sentenced. Once a person is sentenced, the only way to withdraw a guilty plea is to “correct manifest injustice.” The first issue that a trial judge would have to resolve on letting someone withdraw a guilty plea is whether the person is entitled to a hearing. Many judges will look for a way to just deny the motion without holding a hearing. However, the law only permits a judge to summarily deny a motion to withdraw guilty plea under the following circumstances:

1. If the motion is palpably incredible;
2. If the motion, even if true, would not entitle the person to relief; or
3. If the motion is so vague it fails to state any legal basis for action by the court.

Typically, the government will aggressively oppose such motions and argue to the judge that the court should not even hold a hearing. However, given the fact that a federal judge in the District of Columbia ruled that its “Carrying a Pistol” statute was unconstitutional, it would be difficult for the Court to find that such a motion fit into any of the three requirements above. For example, there is nothing “palpably incredible” about an individual wanting to get a conviction off his or her record when they plead guilty to a crime that was later declared unconstitutional.

Having said all that, there are some cons for trying to withdraw a plea. First, it will cost time and money and put you back into the court system. Second, if successful, the government could potentially reinstate any charges that were dismissed as part of the plea agreement. However, they could not and would not likely reinstate the felony “carrying a pistol” felony charge as it has been declared unconstitutional.

Of course, the pros in many circumstances may outweigh the cons. If Carrying a Pistol in DC is the only conviction on one’s record (or only felony conviction), there are tremendous benefits for not having a felony conviction on one’s record. Individuals with felony convictions often can’t vote and have difficulty finding jobs and passing background checks, among other consequences.

Continue reading

gun-1503923There has been a lot of news lately regarding DC’s gun laws.  If you have been convicted in the District of Columbia for carrying a pistol, unregistered firearm, or unregistered ammunition prior to October of 2014, there may be a legal remedy available to get your conviction overturned.  Part I  will discuss the current state of the District’s gun laws and how you may be able to get your conviction overturned.  Part II will discuss the pros and cons of trying to get your conviction overturned.  Finally, Part III will discuss a class action lawsuit filed by Scrofano Law PC and The Law Office of William Claiborne III on behalf of folks who were prosecuted in DC under the city’s unconstitutional gun laws.

In July of 2014, a federal judge in the District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that the city’s “carrying a pistol” statute was unconstitutional.  At that time, the District maintained an absolute ban on the carrying of a pistol.  No mechanism existed to obtain a concealed carry permit.  In Palmer v. District of Columbia, Judge Scullin ruled that right to bear arms articulated in the Second Amendment of the Constitution extended beyond the right to self defense in the home and to “carry” as well.

In response to the decision, the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia (“USAO”) dismissed basically all of its carrying a pistol prosecutions–recognizing that it could not prosecute an unconstitutional law.  These dismissals did not happen immediately but rather occurred over the course of several months.  Unfortunately, for many law abiding non-DC resident citizens who were arrested in the District of Columbia when they had either properly registered their guns in their home state or had a concealed carry permit from their home state, the USAO’s actions did not end their prosecutions.

For each case dismissed by the USAO, the DC Office of the Attorney General’s Office (“DC OAG”) basically picked up the cases and prosecuted the individuals for misdemeanor gun charges.  The DC OAG is the local prosecuting agency in the District that mainly prosecutes traffic crimes like DC DUI cases.  The charges included possession of an unregistered firearm and unlawful possession of ammunition.  In October of 2014, the DC City Council passed legislation in response to the Palmer decision.  The same attorneys from the Palmer case brought another lawsuit arguing that the new legislation was also unconstitutional.  In Wrenn v. District of Columbia, the Plaintiffs have argued that the new law’s requirement that the individual applying for a carry permit demonstrate a “special need” for self-defense (i.e. that someone has threatened them) makes the law unconstitutional.

Initially, the same judge from the Palmer case agreed.  However, that preliminary decision was reversed by the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit.  The parties are now briefing the issue and the DC Circuit is expected to rule in the next few months.  That means the state of the new gun law is currently in limbo until the DC Circuit rules.

Regardless of the status of the new law, Judge Scullin’s decision in Palmer still stands.  No legal ruling yet exists whether this ruling should apply to individuals who were convicted under the pre-Palmer law.  In other words, whether the decision applies retroactively is yet to be decided.  That means if you plead guilty under the old law, there is a basis to try and withdraw your guilty plea and get the conviction taken off of your record.  It also means if you were convicted at trial, there may be a basis to get your conviction overturned given that the law was later ruled unconstitutional.  

Continue reading