Criminal – Defendant’s requests to withdraw guilty plea is denied

Where the defendant’s plea was knowing, intelligent, voluntary and fully compliant with Rule 11, and he did not assert his innocence or demonstrate that his counsel performed deficiently, the district court did not err when it denied his request to withdraw his guilty plea.

Background

Glen Dowell pled guilty pursuant to a written plea agreement to one count of distribution of five grams or more of methamphetamine, one count of possession with intent to distribute a measurable quantity of cocaine and one information charging possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. The court sentenced him to a total term of 120 months’ imprisonment.

Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning (1) whether the district court erred in denying Dowell’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea, (2) whether the court erred in refusing to allow defense counsel to withdraw in February 2023 and (3) whether the court erred in punishing Dowell for his firearms offense because the Second Amendment prohibits the federal government from penalizing firearm possession combined with any cocaine sales.

Dowell was informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but has not done so. In response to the court’s direction, the parties filed merits briefs on issue (3), and the government moved to dismiss that issue based on the plea waiver in Dowell’s plea agreement.

Guilty plea

Counsel argues that Dowell was in a compromised emotional state when he signed the plea agreement. He notes that Dowell first told his attorney he wasn’t interested in a plea and that Dowell had rejected numerous other plea agreements brought to him by prior attorneys. Counsel asserts that plea counsel should have recommended that Dowell take two weeks to think about the agreement before signing while plea counsel tried to negotiate a better deal.

Upon review, this court finds that Dowell’s plea was knowing, intelligent and voluntary and fully compliant with Rule 11. While the court did not advise Dowell of any immigration consequences to his plea, such omission was harmless. Dowell affirmed at his plea hearing that his plea was voluntary and free of improper outside influence and that he understood the plea agreement and its terms. Such declarations “carry a strong presumption of verity.”

Moreover, Dowell did not assert his innocence or demonstrate that counsel performed deficiently. The remaining factors also weighed against permitting withdrawal of the plea.

Motion to withdraw

Counsel asserts that the court may have erred in denying counsel’s motion to withdraw in February 2023. The district court found that counsel was continuing to give Dowell advice and that there was not a sufficient breakdown in communication to warrant granting the motion. This court’s review discloses no abuse of discretion.

Government motion

Where, as here, the government seeks enforcement of an appeal waiver and there is no claim that it breached its obligations under the plea agreement, this court will enforce the waiver to preclude an appeal of a specific issue if the waiver is valid and the issue falls within the scope of the waiver.

Upon review, this court concludes that Dowell knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal. Dowell waived his right to appeal his sentence on any grounds and his right to appeal any and all issues in this matter unless based on an issue that cannot be waived by law. Dowell’s challenge to the constitutionality of his § 924(c)(1)(A) sentence falls squarely within the waiver’s scope.

Dismissed in part, affirmed in part.

United States v. Dowell, Case No. 23-4355, April 8, 2026. 4th Cir. (per curiam), from WDVA at Danville (Dillon). Charles M. Henter for Appellant. Zachary T. Lee and Jonathan Jones for Appellee. VLW 026-2-124. 5 pp.

Full-Text Opinion

VLW 026-2-124
Virginia Lawyers Weekly