applicable guideline range if he were to decide to plead guilty. The letter clearly explains that the range of imprisonment stated therein was approximate and contingent upon a criminal history category of I. Def. Ex. 1 at 2. The plea agreement also explains that it contains "the full and complete terms and conditions of the agreement." Def. Ex. 2 at 6.
District courts do not have the aid of crystal balls which would enable them to foresee all factors that may be discovered by the probation office in preparation of the presentence report. Were we to grant Mr. Smith's motion we would be teetering at the edge of a slippery slope, where "any estimate of the guideline range that the district court would give in advance of the pre-sentence report might well turn out to be misleading and could be the basis for the contention that the guilty plea should be invalidated." United States v. Henry, 893 F.2d 46, 49 (3d Cir. 1990). We are mindful of our obligation to carefully analyze the particular facts of the present case, but we do not believe that the facts and circumstances of Mr. Smith's plea of guilty warrant the granting of his motion to withdraw his plea.
Mr. Smith also claims that his attorney, Bruce Carsia, never contacted him to prepare for trial. A defendant is not entitled to withdraw his guilty plea even though he claims that his attorney failed to familiarize himself with the facts of the case and did not investigate the possible defenses to the charges, especially if the defendant has been informed of the charges. United States v. Rowe, 677 F. Supp. 1327 (M.D. Pa. 1987); United States v. Pitino, 887 F.2d 42 (4th Cir. 1989) (withdrawal of plea denied because defendant failed to establish that attorney's lack of experience in federal criminal trial prejudiced him, that attorney misled him and his family, that attorney was unprepared for trial, or that attorney did not review evidence with defendant prior to plea). The hearing testimony clearly establishes that Mr. Carsia had numerous contacts with his client, Tr. 5, 27, that Mr. Smith was aware of the allegations in the indictment and understood the extent of the government's evidence against him, T. 26, and that Mr. Smith was satisfied with the job that Mr. Carsia had done for him. T. 5.
In conclusion, the granting of the motion in this case, on these facts, would simply be an open invitation to every defendant to plead guilty and then withdraw the plea if he were unhappy about what the guideline range turned out to be. Mr. Smith was as well advised as he could possibly be by the attorney for the government and by his own attorney prior to the guilty plea and by the court at the hearing where the guilty plea was entered.
An appropriate order will be issued.
Maurice B. Cohill, Jr., Judge
AND NOW, to-wit, this 8th day of April, 1993, upon careful consideration of defendant Erskine Smith's motion to withdraw his guilty plea, and the evidence presented thereon, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that said motion be and hereby is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant Erskine Smith, II shall appear for sentencing on Thursday, April 15, 1993 at 9 a.m. in Courtroom 3, 8th Floor, U.S. Post Office and Courthouse, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Maurice B. Cohill, Jr., Judge
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.