2 The district court refused to entertain Bailey's allegation and proceeded with sentencing. The government denied that this was true. Later in the sentencing, Bailey claimed that he pleaded guilty because a “cop” had pressured him by threatening to “charge” his father and daughter. The court explained that Bailey waited many months to withdraw his plea, and it noted that he was “abusing the process.” App'x at 69. At sentencing, the district court denied Bailey's request, as well as his second request to adjourn sentencing. Over seven months later - and just two days before sentencing - Bailey's attorney filed a letter advising the court that Bailey wanted to withdraw his guilty plea. Based on its discussion with Bailey and defense counsel, the district court found that Bailey was “competent and ․ capable of entering an informed plea” and that “his plea a knowing and voluntary plea.” App'x at 49. Finally, the district court asked Bailey if “anyone made any promises to with respect to sentencing,” and Bailey confirmed that no one had. Bailey's attorney explained that Bailey believed pleading guilty would lead to “the best possible outcome” and would serve his “best interest.” App'x at 42.
#Rule 11 colloquy free
The district court had Bailey's attorney “put on the record” his discussions with Bailey to help it determine whether Bailey was pleading guilty “of his own free will.” App'x at 42. At the start of the plea allocution, the district court told Bailey that it “must be satisfied that entering into plea of own free will.” App'x at 40.
#Rule 11 colloquy trial
On November 28, 2018, the day trial was scheduled to begin, Bailey once again decided to plead guilty, this time without a plea agreement. Additionally, Bailey moved money between these accounts and utilized front businesses to hide and launder the illicitly obtained funds. Over the course of the scheme, Bailey endorsed and deposited over 300 fraudulently obtained refund checks totaling more than $1.9 million into multiple bank accounts that he maintained. The superseding indictment alleged, among other things, that between March 2011 and July 2014, Bailey and his co-conspirators used stolen identities to fraudulently obtain tax refunds. On July 26, 2018, the government filed a superseding indictment against Bailey, removing one count of mail fraud and adding three counts of aggravated identity theft. On the eve of Bailey's Jplea hearing, however, Bailey's attorney notified the district court that Bailey no longer planned to plead guilty. We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.īailey was indicted on September 28, 2017, and he entered into a written plea agreement with the government on June 21, 2018. On appeal, Bailey argues that: (1) his plea was taken in violation of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(b)(2) (2) the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea and (3) his sentence was both procedurally and substantively unreasonable. He was sentenced principally to 75 months' imprisonment. FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT: BRENDAN WHITE, White & White, New York, New York.ĭefendant-appellant Miles Bailey appeals from a final judgment entered July 22, 2019, convicting him, following his guilty plea, of conspiracy to steal public money, theft of public money, and aggravated identity theft, in violation of 18 U.S.C. Jaquith, United States Attorney for the Northern District of New York, Syracuse, New York. SCHOENBERGER, Assistant United States Attorney, for Grant C. CARNEY, Circuit Judges.įOR APPELLEE: CARINA H. PRESENT: GUIDO CALABRESI, DENNY CHIN, SUSAN L. United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
0 kommentar(er)
