United States v. Young
| Decision Date | 11 August 2022 |
| Docket Number | 20-6280 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CORTEZ YOUNG, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CORTEZ YOUNG, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 20-6280
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
August 11, 2022
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
Before: SUHRHEINRICH, WHITE, and STRANCH, Circuit Judges.
OPINION
HELENE N. WHITE, CIRCUIT JUDGE.
Defendant-Appellant Cortez Young appeals his convictions and 52-years-and-1-day sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to sixteen counts arising out of several armed robberies and attempted robberies. Young argues that the district court erred in three ways: first, by denying two of Young's attorney's motions to withdraw as appointed counsel; second, by refusing to permit Young to withdraw his guilty plea as unknowing; and third, by denying Young's motion to dismiss two counts of the indictment on the ground that an attempt to obstruct commerce by means of robbery ("attempted Hobbs Act robbery" or "AHAR") is not a "crime of violence" within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand for further proceedings.
I.
On June 19, 2018, a federal grand jury charged Young with seven counts of robbery and two counts of attempted robbery in violation of the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951; and seven counts of using, brandishing, and carrying a firearm in relation to a crime of violence in violation of
18 U.S.C. § 924(c). The indictment alleged that, between October 2017 and January 2018, Young and two associates robbed or attempted to rob nine businesses in Memphis, Tennessee. The robbers carried firearms in each alleged incident and discharged a firearm in one incident (Count 12).[1]
Young was arrested on November 14, 2018, and detained pending trial. That same day, the district court appointed attorney Howard Manis (Manis) as counsel for Young.
A.
On June 13, 2019, during the discovery phase and prior to the scheduled August 19, 2019 trial date, Manis filed a motion to suppress certain statements made by Young as well as other evidence. The district court scheduled a hearing on this motion for August 14, 2019. However, on July 23, Manis filed a motion to withdraw as counsel. The motion explained that although Manis "met with [Young] on a number of occasions," "reviewed [with him] the potential evidence that the United States may use against him at trial," and took "great effort to explain and educate [Young] regarding his rights, including the right to go to trial and the parameters upon which he can enter a guilty plea," the "communications have not always been well received in light of the fact that [Young] is facing a fifty-two (52) year consecutive sentence." R. 110, PID 155-56. Manis stated that, "[b]ased upon my more than twenty-five (25) years' experience representing Defendants before this Court, it is my opinion that the level of communication between undersigned counsel and [Young] is inadequate for undersigned counsel to feel comfortable allowing [Young] to proceed with any decision related to disposition." Id. at 156. Manis also stated that he was "unable to state that my client's ability to comprehend the magnitude of the
situations involved in this manner, including but not limited to options for disposition, pre-trial motions, and trial through my representation is sufficient to proceed." Id. Manis then requested that new counsel be appointed because "Young would benefit hearing his options and thoughts regarding the case from a fresh set of eyes, ears[,] and mouth." Id. The government opposed Manis's motion.
In response, and without holding a hearing, the district court on July 29, 2019 appointed attorney Taurus Bailey (Bailey) as "elbow counsel" to serve alongside Manis. This act functionally provided Young with two lawyers.[2]
B.
On the morning of August 14, 2019, the district court held a hearing on Young's motion to suppress. At the hearing, Manis stated that Young "has indicated that he does not want to go to trial, and obviously the trial is what was precipitating the need to file the motion[] to suppress." R. 190 at 637. Manis stated that, although he did not "think that anyone would be benefited by [] moving forward with the suppression hearing based on [Young]'s position that he does not want to get a trial," the parties had not yet come to an agreement regarding "what a plea might look like." Id. at 638-39. Manis also requested that the district court explain to Young "[h]ow the law requires [it] to handle 924(c) sentencing," because "[i]t might be beneficial [for Young to] hear[]
it from the court" and he "want[ed] Young to be clear as to what the law says." Id. at 640-41. The court obliged, and explained that
under 924[(c)], if someone pleads guilty or if someone is found guilty, it's just like a mandatory minimum of, you know, on a drug case or any other place where Congress has said there's a mandatory minimum. That is the floor. And then it goes from there all the way up to life
And so I don't know which or how many 924[(c)]s you're talking about at this point, but obviously if the defendant is found guilty or pleads guilty to a 924[(c)] count, whatever the-that particular count calls for, sometimes it's five years, sometimes it's 7, sometimes it's 10, that is a mandatory minimum which means mandatory, and the court has no discretion to go below that.
Id. at 641-42. At Manis's request, the court then allowed Manis to conduct a voir dire with Young to ensure that Young understood his charged offenses and prospective penalties and that Manis had adequately advised him of his options. Id. at 643-44. The court then allowed Manis to explain to Young, on the record, that he had been charged with 16 different counts; that he could be sentenced to anywhere from 0 to 20 years on the various charges; that many of the potential sentences were required to be consecutive, which could result in Young "looking at a minimum of 52 years on" the firearms charges alone; and that Young had the option to either go to trial or enter a plea. Id. at 644-49. Young affirmed that he understood all this information.
Following this discussion, Manis held an off-the-record conversation with Young. He then stated that Young needed "time . . . to determine how he would like to plead versus whether or not he would like to plead. And obviously that would be with or without an agreement between the parties of any sort or an open plea situation." Id. at 650. Manis then stated that "there's not a need to proceed with the suppression hearing today, and it does not appear that a trial on Monday would be necessary." Id. at 652. He then requested that the court adjourn the plea hearing until Monday so that Young could determine "how he would like to facilitate that plea, whether it would be with or without an agreement with the government." Id. at 652. Rather than adjourn, the court ordered
Manis and Young to discuss next steps and implored "Mr. Young [to] understand[] that if we don't go forward today, he's waiving his right to proceed on that motion to suppress. And if we go forward Monday, any question about that evidence will be forever waived." Id. at 656. After conferring with Young, Manis stated that Young was "prepared to waive the suppression hearing issues" and "withdraw the motions." Id. at 657. The court then determined that the parties would recess and reconvene in the afternoon.
C.
During the recess, Manis filed a motion to dismiss the seven counts of possession of a weapon during a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) on the ground that the indictment did not sufficiently allege a predicate crime of violence.
At the afternoon hearing, the district court began by denying Young's motion to dismiss. The court relied on our decision in United States v. Gooch, 850 F.3d 285 (6th Cir. 2017), which held that Hobbs Act Robbery is a crime of violence.
The district court next turned to whether Young wanted to change his plea. Young stated that he did. After learning that Young had a high-school degree and had completed one semester of college, the district court confirmed with Young that he was not under the influence of drugs or alcohol; that he understood what it meant to change his plea; that he had received a copy of the indictment; and that he had discussed the indictment with both Manis and Bailey. In response to the question "Have you told [your attorneys] everything that you know about [your case] or do you know other things that they don't know?," Young stated that he "kn[e]w other things they don't know." R. 187, PID 588. The district court then paused the proceedings and gave Young additional time to talk to his lawyers "in order [for them] to give [Young] good advice on how to
proceed in the case."[3] Id. at 588-89. Upon reconvening, Young confirmed that he had told his lawyers everything they needed to know in order to help him. Young also confirmed that his attorneys discussed with him "the nature of the meaning of the charges in the case." Id. at 590. He then affirmed that Manis and Bailey had told him "everything that the government would have to prove in order to obtain a conviction against" him; that Manis and Bailey had discussed the possibility of trial; that he was satisfied with Manis and Bailey's representation; that he understood a guilty plea would render him a felon with fewer civil rights than non-felons; and that his guilty plea would waive his trial rights. Id. at 591-94.
The district court also asked Manis whether he was satisfied that Young "underst[ood] the charges, the elements of the offense[s] charged, as well as the potential penalties and consequences of a plea." Id. at 591. Manis stated that he was satisfied. The district court then stated that it "observed Mr. Young [] and noticed that he was tracking with the conversation and certainly appeared to...
To continue reading
Request your trial