In Tibbs v. United States (No. 13-CF-1425), decided on January 15, 2015, the Court of Appeals remanded the matter to the trial court for further consideration due to criminal sentencing irregularities. Defendant Tibbs sought to withdraw a guilty plea to assault with a dangerous weapon (“ADW”), conspiracy to commit ADW, two counts of voluntary manslaughter, and carrying a pistol without a license. At sentencing, and several months after the plea — at the commencement of appellant’s sentencing hearing, appellant orally moved to withdraw the plea as factually unsupported. After the government’s proffer to the offenses committed, defendant Tibbs had asserted that he had acted in self-defense, and regardless, the plea process was completed and matter scheduled for sentencing.

A defendant may withdraw his guilty plea either by showing that there was a fatal defect in the Rule 11 proceeding at which the guilty plea was taken or that “justice demands withdrawal in the circumstances of the individual case” – commonly known as the fair and just standard.

Specifically D.C. SCR-Crim. Rule 11(f) provides:

Determining accuracy of plea – notwithstanding the acceptance of a plea of guilty, the Court should not enter a judgment upon such plea without making such inquiry as shall satisfy it that there is a factual basis for the plea.

Thus defendant Tibbs asserted self-defense during the plea colloquy and thus on appeal and via motion to withdraw the plea alleged not sufficient factual basis for the offense charged.

The Court instructed that the trial Judge faced with motion to withdraw the plea must consider, analyze and articulate these factors in determine the fair and just standard: (1)“whether the defendant has asserted his or her legal innocence”; (2) “the length of the delay between entry of the guilty plea and the desire to withdraw it”; and (3) “whether the accused has had the full benefit of competent counsel at all relevant times.”

Although the trial court made sufficient inquires with regards to elements (2) and (3), the court did not sufficiently address defendant Tibbs’ claim to self-defense raised during the plea hearing.

Specifically, defendant’s statements during the Rule 11 colloquy was not consistent or comported with the offense of voluntary manslaughter, and the offense charged.

Thus the Court of Appeals ruled that the trial court did not make sufficient inquiry as to the legitimacy or viability of the self defense claim during the plea proceedings to determine whether there was factual basis for the self-defense claim. Nor did the trial court articulate sufficiently as to his reasoning for denying the appellant Tibbs’ motion to withdraw his plea and thus the matter should be remanded for the trial court to consider: if the appellant has a valid legitimate self-defense claim, and whether Tibbs should be permitted to withdraw his plea on that basis, and if the motion to withdraw plea is denied – articulate basis for such denial consistent with this ruling.

The Law Offices of David Stein is the preeminent Washington DC based law firm specialized in complex civil and criminal litigation.