United States v. Cornelius Mayberry

United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · January 7, 2025 · No. 23-4051

Summary

This Fourth Circuit opinion affirms the district court's denial of the defendant's motions to suppress evidence obtained during a narcotics sting operation and to withdraw his conditional guilty plea. The court held that law enforcement had probable cause to arrest the defendant and that he voluntarily abandoned his backpack containing methamphetamine. Additionally, the court found no fair and just reason to allow withdrawal of the plea given the extensive Rule 11 colloquy and lack of credible claims of ineffective assistance or involuntary plea.

Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Writing for the Court
Senior Judge Keenan; Judge Agee; Judge Harris
Jurisdiction
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Decision date
January 7, 2025
Docket number
23-4051
Procedural posture
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg, challenging the district court's denial of motions to suppress and to withdraw a guilty plea.
Standard of review
De novo for probable‑cause and abandonment issues; abuse of discretion for the motion to withdraw the guilty plea.
Precedential value
published
Parties
Cornelius Mayberry v. United States
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

fourth amendmentprobable causesearch and seizureexclusionary rulecriminal procedure

Practice areas

criminal procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the district court erred in denying Mayberry's motion to withdraw his guilty plea.
  2. Whether the officers had probable cause to arrest Mayberry.
  3. Whether the warrantless search of Mayberry's backpack was valid as an abandonment case.

Holdings

  1. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to withdraw the guilty plea.
  2. The district court did not err; the officers had probable cause to arrest Mayberry.
  3. The district court did not err; Mayberry abandoned the backpack, so the warrantless search was permissible.

Key quotations

We hold that the district court did not err in determining that the police had probable cause to arrest Mayberry. (20)
Accordingly, we hold that the district court did not err in denying Mayberry’s motion to suppress the search of his backpack. (20)

Factual background

Law enforcement stopped a vehicle for speeding, learned of a planned methamphetamine transaction at a Red Roof Inn, and used a cooperating informant to arrange a text‑message exchange with the suspected dealer. Mayberry arrived at the inn carrying a distinctive backpack, was arrested in the hallway, and the backpack was later seized and searched, yielding methamphetamine. Mayberry later entered a conditional guilty plea to drug‑related offenses.

Procedural history

The district court denied Mayberry's motions to suppress the warrantless search of his backpack, to suppress his post‑arrest statements, and to withdraw his guilty plea. The court affirmed Mayberry's conviction. Mayberry appealed those denials.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…