United States v. Cortez Fisher
711 F.3d 460 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2013
Facts
On October 29, 2007, Officer Mark Lunsford applied for a search warrant for Cortez Fisher's residence and vehicle, averring in a sworn affidavit that a reliable confidential informant stated Fisher distributed narcotics and possessed a handgun. Lunsford claimed the informant provided Fisher's description, address, vehicle details, and identified him in a photo. Lunsford also stated he conducted surveillance, observed Fisher making drug transactions, and later arrested Fisher, finding empty glass vials. Based solely on this affidavit, Lunsford obtained and executed the search warrant, discovering crack cocaine and a loaded handgun. Fisher was subsequently charged with possession with intent to distribute cocaine base and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Fisher entered a plea agreement, pleading guilty to possession of a firearm by a felon, and received a ten-year prison sentence.
Procedural history
Over a year after Fisher pled guilty, Officer Lunsford pled guilty to fraud and theft offenses, admitting he lied in the search warrant affidavit for Fisher's case. Fisher then filed a pro se motion to vacate his guilty plea, which the district court denied. After defense counsel filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment and a supplement, the district court again denied the motion to vacate. The district court granted a certificate of appealability for a Sixth Amendment claim, and this Court expanded it to include the Due Process Clause issue regarding the belated disclosure of Lunsford's misconduct.
Issue
Did a law enforcement officer's affirmative misrepresentation in a search warrant affidavit, which was later discovered and admitted, render the defendant's subsequent guilty plea involuntary and violate his due process rights?
Holding
Yes, the officer's affirmative misrepresentation in the search warrant affidavit rendered the defendant's guilty plea involuntary and violated his due process rights. The district court's decision is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings.
Rule
A guilty plea must be knowingly and voluntarily made, and it is involuntary if the defendant was misinformed about a crucial aspect of the case due to government misrepresentation. To set aside a plea as involuntary, a defendant must show (1) egregious impermissible government conduct, such as blatant misrepresentations, antedated the plea, and (2) this misconduct influenced the decision to plead guilty, meaning it was material to that choice. The misconduct need not be prosecutorial promises but can be affirmative misstatements that plainly and inexcusably misrepresent the true state of affairs. The defendant must demonstrate a reasonable probability that, but for the misconduct, he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener
Case brief last reviewed . Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.