USA v. Anthony Ewell

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 23-12393
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ANTHONY SHAWNN EWELL,
Defendant-Appellant.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
D.C. Docket No. 0:22-cr-60257-WPD-1
____________________
USCA11 Case: 23-12393 Document: 39-1 Date Filed: 04/29/2024 Page: 1 of 4

-- 1 of 4 --

2 Opinion of the Court 23-12393
Before WILLIAM PRYOR , Chief Judge, and NEWSOM and ANDERSON,
Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Anthony Ewell appeals his conviction following his plea of
guilty to possessing child pornography. 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4)(B).
Ewell challenges the denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty
plea on the grounds that he was deprived of close assistance of
counsel and that the district court failed to ensure that his plea was
free from coercion. Because the record of Ewell’s guilty plea sup-
ports the decision to deny his motion, we affirm.
We review the denial of Ewell’s motion to withdraw his plea
for abuse of discretion. United States v. Brehm, 442 F.3d 1291, 1298
(11th Cir. 2006). We will not reverse unless that decision is “arbi-
trary or unreasonable.” Id.
A defendant may withdraw his plea of guilty before sentenc-
ing if he can “show a fair and just reason for requesting the with-
drawal.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(d)(2)(B). “In determining whether the
defendant has met this burden, the district court may consider the
totality of the circumstances surrounding the plea.” United States v.
Buckles, 843 F.2d 469, 471–72 (11th Cir. 1988). It may consider
among those circumstances whether the defendant enjoyed close
assistance of counsel and whether his plea was entered knowingly
and voluntarily. Id. at 472. The determination of whether to credit
or what weight to give a defendant’s assertions in support of a mo-
tion to withdraw rests solely with the district court. Id.
USCA11 Case: 23-12393 Document: 39-1 Date Filed: 04/29/2024 Page: 2 of 4

-- 2 of 4 --

23-12393 Opinion of the Court 3
The district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that
Ewell enjoyed the close assistance of counsel and that he was not
coerced to plead guilty. Ewell received assistance from two “expe-
rienced” federal public defenders, and he confirmed during the plea
colloquy that he was satisfied with their advice and that his attor-
neys had not forced him to enter a plea. The district court granted
a three-month continuance for his attorneys to review his case and,
after the government produced additional discovery two weeks be-
fore the plea hearing, his attorneys confirmed that they reviewed
the discovery, including the forensic report on Ewell’s computer
and storage devices. During the plea hearing, the district court re-
cessed for over a half hour to allow Ewell to confer with his attor-
neys about the new discovery and any concerns he might have, and
Ewell later confirmed several times that he did not need more time
to think about his decision or to speak with his attorneys. See United
States v. Medlock, 12 F.3d 185, 187 (11th Cir.1994) (“There is a strong
presumption that . . . statements [made by a defendant] during [his
guilty plea] colloquy are true.”). Ewell also denied feeling “forced
into making a decision” and affirmed more than once that he un-
derstood that he was not required to follow his attorneys’ advice,
that he could proceed to trial instead of pleading guilty, and that by
pleading guilty he might risk denying his attorneys “a chance to
finish any investigation that they may have otherwise wanted to
have conducted.” See id.
The district court also did not abuse its discretion in finding
that Ewell entered his plea knowingly and voluntarily. Ewell re-
sponded appropriately and intelligently to several questions about
USCA11 Case: 23-12393 Document: 39-1 Date Filed: 04/29/2024 Page: 3 of 4

-- 3 of 4 --

4 Opinion of the Court 23-12393
his understanding of the charge, the consequences of pleading
guilty, and the maximum penalties. The district court confirmed
that he understood the rights that he was waiving by pleading
guilty and that he did not need more time to discuss his case with
his attorneys or to think about his decision. Ewell confirmed that
he was not threatened or forced to plead guilty, he was pleading
guilty freely and voluntarily, and he understood that he could not
withdraw his plea later because he “made a mistake” or because his
“lawyer was no good.” And Ewell explained at the plea hearing that
although the “stress of the case” was bothering him and the ques-
tion about his mental health “raised some feelings,” he still was
“ready to make [the decision to plead].” See id. In the light of
Ewell’s repeated and unequivocal statements, the district court was
entitled to find that he voluntarily decided to plead guilty with the
close assistance of two attorneys. Buckles, 843 F.2d at 472.
We AFFIRM Ewell’s conviction.
USCA11 Case: 23-12393 Document: 39-1 Date Filed: 04/29/2024 Page: 4 of 4

-- 4 of 4 --