On appeal Defendant argues that her plea was not knowing and voluntary and that the district court erred when it denied her motion to withdraw the plea. She argues that her plea was not valid because she did not know (1) that a no-contest plea would have the same “attendant consequences” as a finding of guilt, Aplt. Br. at 9; (2) that the plea would result in a felony conviction and a finding of guilt; (3) that the conviction would make it difficult to obtain credit, employment, federal financial aid, and Section 8 housing; and (4) that the conviction would preclude her from firearm ownership and render her testimony in court suspect. But the law does not require a defendant to be informed of the collateral consequences of a plea, and the district court properly found that she knew that her plea would lead to a finding of guilt of the offense charged. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.
Defendant came to the United States from Turkey, and has a son who was born here. According to the indictment, from May 2004 to August 2009 Defendant received HUD rent subsidies based on her false statements in a written application and recertification forms that she was not receiving any income from any source. The indictment stated that she improperly received $8,351 in subsidies.
Judge(s): Harris Hartz
Jurisdiction: U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit
Related Categories: Contracts , Criminal Justice , Employment , Government / Politics , Immigration , International , Property
|Circuit Court Judge(s)|
|Plaintiff Lawyer(s)||Plaintiff Law Firm(s)|
|Leena Alam||U.S. Department of Justice|
|Dennis Fries||U.S. Department of Justice|
|Danny Williams, Sr.||U.S. Department of Justice|
|Defendant Lawyer(s)||Defendant Law Firm(s)|