In United States v. Hernandez, --- F.4th ---, No. 22-50134 (9th Cir. 2024), the Court vacated the district court’s order denying Vladimir Horowitz’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea, and remanded for further proceedings.
We address whether a criminal defendant’s belated realization that his safety-valve proffer could lead to reprisal in prison counts as a “fair and just” reason to withdraw his guilty plea [under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(d)(2).]When Vladimir Hernandez pleaded guilty to felony meth distribution charges, he agreed to tell the government everything he knew in exchange for a chance at a lower sentence under the safety-valve sentencing provision. But soon after Hernandez entered the plea, he apparently learned for the first time that other inmates may not take too kindly to his cooperation. He now swears that he would not have agreed to the favorable plea deal if he had known that seeking a safety-valve sentence reduction would subject him to potential peril in prison.District courts may allow a defendant to withdraw a plea before sentencing if he offers a “fair and just” reason for doing so. See Fed. R. Crim. Pro. 11. We have interpreted the “fair and just” standard to include a reason that did not exist when the defendant entered the plea. But a defendant cannot withdraw his plea for just any “new” reason. To withdraw a plea, a defendant must show that (1) the “new” reason is being offered in good-faith and that he subjectively did not know this reason for his plea withdrawal at the time of the plea, and (2) it was objectively reasonable to have not known about or anticipated this material new reason, either.
