TAX EVADER'S MOTION TO WITHDRAW GUILTY PLEA DENIED.
Snyder, George C., U.S. v.
- Case NameUNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. GEORGE C. SNYDER, Appellant
- CourtUnited States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
- DocketNo. 00-3578
- JudgeRosenn, Max
- Parallel Citation276 F.3d 5812001-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) P50,76088 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 2001-67972001 U.S. App. LEXIS 24674
- Code Sections
- Subject Area/Tax Topics
- Index Termsfraudtax administration, interfering withsentencing guidelines
- Jurisdictions
- LanguageEnglish
- Tax Analysts Document NumberDoc 2001-28561 (3 original pages)
- Tax Analysts Electronic Citation2001 TNT 221-18
Snyder, George C., U.S. v.
UNPUBLISHED
UNREPORTED -- NOT PRECEDENTIAL
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
D.C. No.: 99-cr-00053
District Judge: Honorable Robert J. Cindrich
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) October 16, 2001
Before: Alito, Barry, and Rosenn, Circuit Judges
(Filed: October 19, 2001)
Robert E. Lindsay
Alan Hechtkopf
Gregory V. Davis
Michael E. Karam
United States Department of Justice
Tax Division P.O. Box 502 Washington, DC 20044
Counsel for Appellee
Michael L. Rosenfield
P.O. Box 81266
Pittsburgh, PA 15217
Counsel for Appellant
MEMORANDUM OPINION
ROSENN, CIRCUIT JUDGE.
[1] The appellant, George C. Snyder, was indicted on two counts of willfully filing false income tax returns in violation of 26 U.S.C. §7206(1) and one count of corruptly endeavoring to obstruct the due administration of the Internal Revenue Laws, in violation of 26 U.S.C. §7212(a). With an Assistant Public Defender representing him, Snyder pled guilty on May 19, 2000, to both counts. On September 13, 2000, Snyder, having obtained the appointment of new counsel, filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Following a hearing on the motion, the District Court denied it and subsequently sentenced the defendant to twenty-one months in prison, with supervised release for one year, and payment of a statutory assessment of $100. Snyder timely appealed.
[2] On appeal, Snyder raises two issues: (1) whether a defendant in a criminal case voluntarily entered a guilty plea when he believed that his trial counsel was unprepared to try the case, and (2) whether the trial court erred when it sentenced him to the maximum under the Sentencing Guidelines because he was unable to pay a fine.
[3] We will not discuss the facts pertaining to the underlying crimes because they are well-known to the parties. When Snyder pled guilty on May 19, 2000, to both counts of the indictment, he admitted in his colloquy with the court that he wished to waive his right to a jury trial, had sufficient opportunity to discuss the case with counsel, and was satisfied with the work that counsel had done for him. Snyder also denied that anyone had made any threat forcing or coercing him into entering the guilty plea. The District Court found Snyder competent to enter the plea, accepted his plea, and judged him guilty.
[4] Rule 32(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states that: "[i]f a motion to withdraw a plea of guilty is made before sentence is imposed, the court may permit the plea to be withdrawn if the defendant shows any fair and just reason." Although such motions are considered liberally, there is no absolute right to withdraw a guilty plea. Moreover, it is the defendant's burden to show grounds for the withdrawal of the plea. Three factors are evaluated in determining whether defendant has met the burden: 1) does the defendant assert his innocence; 2) would the Government be prejudiced by the withdrawal of the plea; and 3) the strength of defendant's reasons to withdraw the plea. See United States v. Jones, 979 F.2d 317, 318 (3d Cir. 1992).
[5] We are satisfied that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Snyder's motion to withdraw his plea. Although he asserts his innocence and the Government would not be prejudiced by a withdrawal of the plea, Snyder offers no substance or valid reason for the withdrawal. Snyder makes much of his attorney's efforts to withdraw from the case at or about the time he pled guilty, claiming that his lawyer was unprepared to go to trial, but Snyder submits nothing of substance to support his claim. His counsel at the time strongly believed that ethically and morally he could not present the defense that Snyder wished to present. Snyder has not specified what that defense was, and we can only presume that his lawyer was correct. The District Court found no evidence to support Snyder's coercion allegation, and we can find none in the record to support a finding that the court abused its discretion.
[6] With respect to the sentence imposed upon Snyder, he again asserts that the court abused its discretion in the imposition of the sentence. However, "abuse of discretion" is not the standard applicable with respect to this issue. He does not argue that the sentence violated the statute and, in the absence of such violation, we are without jurisdiction to hear the sentence appeal.
[7] Finally, in his pro se brief, Snyder argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Ordinarily, such claims are not heard on direct appeal. See United States v. Theodoropoulos, 866 F.2d 587, 598 (3d Cir. 1989). Rather, the proper avenue for such an appeal is through a collateral proceeding with an opportunity to develop a record. The record here is insufficient to entertain Snyder's ineffective assistance of counsel argument in this direct appeal.
[8] Accordingly, the judgment and sentence of the District Court is affirmed.
TO THE CLERK:
Please file the foregoing opinion.
/s/ Max Rosenn
Circuit Judge
- Case NameUNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. GEORGE C. SNYDER, Appellant
- CourtUnited States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
- DocketNo. 00-3578
- JudgeRosenn, Max
- Parallel Citation276 F.3d 5812001-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) P50,76088 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 2001-67972001 U.S. App. LEXIS 24674
- Code Sections
- Subject Area/Tax Topics
- Index Termsfraudtax administration, interfering withsentencing guidelines
- Jurisdictions
- LanguageEnglish
- Tax Analysts Document NumberDoc 2001-28561 (3 original pages)
- Tax Analysts Electronic Citation2001 TNT 221-18