Public Defense

Defendant Cannot Withdraw Plea "Provisionally" Accepted by District Court
US v. Battle: Battle was charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm and decided to plead guilty. At his guilty plea hearing, the district court "provisionally accepted" Battle's guilty plea "pending receipt" of the PSR...

Court Denies DUI Defendants Request to Withdraw Guilty Plea to Operating While Intoxicated
On October 30, 2007, the Michigan Court of Appeals, in an unpublished opinion in the case People v. Bach, affirmed the trial court’s decision to deny the DUI defendant’s request to withdraw her guilty plea to a third offense of operating while intoxicated (OWI) with a blood alcohol content of ...

Avoiding Criminal Conviction With Your Criminal Defense Attorney
Why hiring a skilled criminal defense attorney can help you avoid a criminal conviction We often receive questions about how a person who has plead guilty to a crime can return to court and withdraw his guilty plea...

Another Day, Another Ruling on Preserving Issues for Appeal
For the second day in a row, the Sixth Circuit contends with whether a defendant properly preserved his appellate rights. In United States v. Matromatteo, the Sixth Circuit was confronted with a situation where a defendant approached the district court and stated that he was pleading guilty, but preserving his right to appeal the denial of his Motion to Suppress and Motion for a Franks Hearing...

CA1: no plea withdrawal
US v. Bates, No. 07-1370 (7/28/08) (unpublished). A defendant really wants to withdraw his plea. He had the opportunity to withdraw it at the District Court. He did not. The First vacillates as to whether this is a waiver or...

Comments on US v. O'Daniel, No. 02-CR-159-H (N.D. Okl., August 6, 2004)
In United States v. Danny Eugene O?Daniel, No. 02-CR-159-H (N.D. Oklahoma, August 6, 2004),(link below) a case involving a pre-Blakely guilty plea with a rather detailed plea agreement, the district held: Blakely applicable to the federal sentencing guidelines; that defendant had waived his right to jury fact-finding (the Court had earlier indicated intent to vacate guilty plea post-Blakely, the Government and defendant objected, with defendant insisting his plea was a voluntary and knowing one, so the court said it would then proceed to sentencing with judicial fact-finding); that the Rules of Evidence would apply at sentencing as to any sentencing...