United States v. Ensminger

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
567 F.3d 587 (2009)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A non-binding court decision from another jurisdiction that provides persuasive authority for an already-available legal challenge does not constitute an 'intervening circumstance' or a 'fair and just reason' to permit a defendant to withdraw a guilty plea under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(d)(2)(B).

Facts:

In 1999, Terry Alan Ensminger was convicted of Third Degree Assault with Sexual Motivation in Washington, which required him to register as a sex offender.
Under the federal Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), Ensminger was required to register in each jurisdiction where he resided, worked, or was a student.
In September 2007, Ensminger traveled interstate from Washington to Montana.
After moving to Montana, Ensminger knowingly failed to update his registration as required by SORNA.
Ensminger was subsequently arrested in Billings, Montana.

Procedural Posture:

Terry Alan Ensminger was indicted in the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana on one count of failing to register as a sex offender.
Ensminger initially entered a plea of not guilty.
After the deadline for pre-trial motions, Ensminger entered into a plea agreement and moved to change his plea to guilty.
The district court accepted Ensminger's guilty plea, finding it was made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily.
Before his sentencing hearing, Ensminger filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea, citing a recent federal district court case from Florida.
The U.S. District Court for the District of Montana denied the motion to withdraw the plea.
The district court sentenced Ensminger to a 21-month term of incarceration.
Ensminger appealed the denial of his motion to withdraw his plea to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a non-binding district court decision from another circuit, which finds the statute of conviction unconstitutional, constitute a 'fair and just reason' under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(d)(2)(B) to permit a defendant to withdraw their guilty plea?

Opinions:

Majority - Tallman, Circuit Judge

No, a non-binding district court decision from another circuit does not constitute a 'fair and just reason' to withdraw a guilty plea. To qualify as an 'intervening circumstance' sufficient for withdrawal, a development in the law must typically be a shift in governing, binding authority that gives traction to a previously foreclosed or unavailable argument. Here, the Commerce Clause challenge Ensminger wished to pursue was available to him at all times before he entered his plea; he made a strategic decision not to raise it. The subsequent, non-binding Florida district court decision in Powers did not change the governing law in the Ninth Circuit, overrule any precedent, or create a new defense that was previously unavailable. Allowing a defendant to withdraw a valid plea based on a mere change of heart, prompted by newfound hope from a persuasive but non-binding authority, would undermine the finality of guilty pleas, which are 'grave and solemn acts' not to be treated as tentative placeholders.

Analysis:

This decision clarifies the 'intervening circumstances' justification for withdrawing a guilty plea under Rule 11, drawing a sharp distinction between changes in binding, governing law and the emergence of non-binding, persuasive authority. It reinforces the principle of finality for guilty pleas, signaling to defendants that they cannot use the plea as a placeholder while waiting for favorable legal developments elsewhere. The ruling places a strong emphasis on the defendant's strategic choices, holding that a defendant who forgoes an available legal challenge before pleading guilty cannot later retract the plea simply because another court's non-binding opinion makes that challenge seem more appealing.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: United States v. Ensminger (2009)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"