Court: Las Vegas judge correct for not letting man withdraw plea

By Steve Kanigher

Wednesday, July 6, 2011 | 11:54 a.m.

Federal appellate judges ruled Tuesday that U.S. District Court Judge Roger Hunt in Las Vegas acted correctly in rejecting a criminal defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea after he initially waived his right to appeal a conviction.

Najeeb Rahman pleaded guilty to aggravated identity theft and committing fraudulent transactions with access devices. According to court records, the district court determined that Rahman understood the plea agreement and was satisfied with his counsel's representation.

But Rahman later withdrew his plea, citing a "rift" and "overall communications difficulties" with his lawyer. He was granted a new lawyer and a hearing to consider withdrawal of his guilty plea. But Hunt denied Rahman's motion to withdraw his plea, noting that the defendant made no showing of ineffective counsel.

A panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that ruling, agreeing that it could find no evidence of ineffective legal assistance.

"In fact, Rahman's new attorney admitted to the district court that he did not 'know exactly what it was that transpired' in the talks between Rahman and his former attorney, and that he was 'not sure' what misrepresentations Rahman's former attorney might have made in order to induce Rahman to plead guilty," Circuit Judge Diarmuid O'Scannlain wrote.