Christen L. Clark pled guilty on May 2, 2024, to six counts involving cocaine, fentanyl and methamphetamine trafficking and firearm possession while represented by Owen D. Kalis. Kalis filed a notice of withdrawal on May 13, 2024, stating he had resigned from the practice of law, accompanied by an Ohio Supreme Court order accepting the resignation with "disciplinary action pending."
Writing for the panel, Circuit Judge Jane B. Stranch said U.S. District Judge Patricia A. Gaughan of the Northern District of Ohio abused her discretion by ruling on Clark's motion without holding a hearing. The panel also included Circuit Judges John K. Bush and Stephanie Dawkins Davis.
Clark was represented by four different attorneys over the course of less than a year. After Kalis's withdrawal, Clark was without counsel for about a month and a half before the court appointed James J. McDonnell. Clark subsequently sent a letter to the court stating "he never saw the evidence, his attorney did not explain the consequences of his plea, and attorney Kalis never informed him that he was facing disciplinary issues," according to the opinion. McDonnell later filed a motion to withdraw the plea that expressly requested an oral hearing.
At the plea hearing itself, the district court had observed that "it is apparent to this Court that Mr. Clark is not prepared to enter a change of plea," the opinion noted. Kalis then interrupted as the court began explaining sentencing exposure, telling the court, "I think he is about to make a decision." Clark signed the plea agreement during the hearing but left one page uninitialed.
The district court denied the motion to withdraw without a hearing, concluding that facts presented in the government's brief "have not been refuted," and sentenced Clark to 270 months in prison. The government's account rested on representations about conversations between prosecutors and Kalis, including that prosecutors "understood from subsequent conversations with Kalis that the defendant saw the images and they were part of the reason defendant decided to plead guilty."
Stranch wrote that the factual disputes "essentially rely on the Government's assertions regarding statements allegedly made by a now-absent attorney, which assertions contradict Clark's account." She added that Clark's "failure to initial one page of the Agreement provides some support for his contention that the decision—and the procedures surrounding it—were rushed and uninformed."
The panel distinguished the case from United States v. Triplett and United States v. Woods, prior Sixth Circuit decisions on when hearings are required for plea-withdrawal motions. Unlike those defendants, Stranch wrote, Clark raised factual disputes not "clearly dispelled by the record" and explicitly requested a hearing.
Stranch also pointed to the procedural bind Clark faced in raising ineffective-assistance claims, which generally must be pursued in collateral proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Clark "was faced with an impossible choice: he could attempt to assert his IAC claim on an undeveloped record, which would likely preclude later collateral review, or pursue his directly appealable claims without the IAC claim, which would undercut the key element supporting their merit," the opinion stated. "Given these unusual circumstances, not holding an evidentiary hearing constituted an abuse of discretion."
The panel did not address the merits of the withdrawal motion and left that issue to the district court following the hearing on remand.
Clark was represented by Wendy R. Calaway of the Law Office of Wendy R. Calaway Co. L.P.A. The government was represented by Brenna L. Fasko and Laura McMullen Ford of the U.S. Attorney's Office in Cleveland.