Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Carl Wayne Hite, Jr. pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute fentanyl in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. He later moved to withdraw his guilty plea, but the district court denied the motion.
Hite appealed his conviction, raising one issue: whether the district court improperly denied his request to withdraw the plea. He also challenged the court’s decision to deny relief without conducting an evidentiary hearing.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth Circuit affirmed. Applying the factors from United States v. Carr, the court concluded that the district court’s analysis rested on neither a legal error nor a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence. Hite conceded that he had not asserted his innocence, waited two months before seeking withdrawal, and moved only after the district court had reviewed the presentence report and other materials, making withdrawal disruptive to the docket and inconvenient for the court.
The record also showed that Hite had close assistance of counsel: he expressed satisfaction with trial counsel, who negotiated the plea agreement, discussed the case, and explained the evidence. The court further concluded that Hite’s plea was knowing and voluntary. On that record, Hite did not establish that the district court abused its discretion either by denying withdrawal or by declining to hold an evidentiary hearing.
Key Takeaways
- A defendant seeking to withdraw a guilty plea must overcome the district court’s discretionary assessment of the relevant Carr factors.
- Hite’s failure to assert innocence, two-month delay, close assistance of counsel, and knowing and voluntary plea all weighed against withdrawal.
- The Fifth Circuit found no abuse of discretion in denying the motion without an evidentiary hearing.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the record-based inquiry governing presentencing motions to withdraw guilty pleas in the Fifth Circuit. A delay in seeking withdrawal, the absence of an assertion of innocence, adequate assistance of counsel, and evidence that the plea was knowing and voluntary can support denial of the motion.
It also confirms that an evidentiary hearing is not automatically required when a defendant seeks to withdraw a guilty plea; here, the existing record supported the district court’s exercise of discretion.