USA v. Bradley

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	No. 23-03140-01-CR-S-MDH
)
JOHN MICHAEL BRADLEY, 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Withdraw Plea of Guilty. (Doc. 79.) This action
has been referred to the undersigned for the purpose of submitting a report. 	As follows, it is
RECOMMENDED that the Motion to Withdraw Plea of Guilty be DENIED.
On May 5, 2025, Defendant pled guilty to two counts of aggravated sexual abuse of a minor
less than 12 years of age, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2241(c) and 3261(a)(2), one count of
aggravated sexual abuse of a minor less than 12 years of age, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2241(c),
and one count of engaging in illicit sexual conduct in foreign places, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §
2423(c). (Docs. 38, 88.) Eight months later, Defendant filed this Motion to Withdraw.
Defendant contends that he should be permitted to withdraw his plea of guilty under
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 because “his plea was not voluntary[,] and he had
ineffective assistance of counsel.” (Doc. 79.)
Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(d)(2)(B), a defendant may withdraw a guilty
plea after the court accepts it but before sentencing only if he shows “a fair and just reason for
requesting the withdrawal.” Specifically, the Eighth Circuit has held that “[t]he defendant bears
Case 6:23-cr-03140-SRB Document 90 Filed 04/22/26 Page 1 of 4

2
the burden to establish fair and just grounds for withdrawal.” United States v. Cruz, 643 F.3d 639,
642 (8th Cir. 2011). “When a defendant has entered a knowing and voluntary plea of guilty at a
hearing at which he acknowledged committing the crime, the occasion for setting aside a guilty
plea should seldom arise.” United States v. Forjan, 66 F.4th 739, 751 (8th Cir. 2023).
The Court “need not hold an evidentiary hearing [on a Motion to Withdraw] if the
allegations in the motion are inherently unreliable, are not supported by specific facts or are not
grounds for withdrawal even if true.” United States v. Trevino, 829 F.3d 668, 673 (8th Cir. 2016)
(quoting United States v. Morrison, 967 F.2d 264, 267–68 (8th Cir. 1992)). “Allegations that
contradict a defendant’s statements at the change of plea hearing are ‘inherently unreliable.’”
United States v. McHenry, 849 F.3d 699, 706 (8th Cir. 2017) (quoting United States v. Harris–
Thompson, 751 F.3d 590, 603 (8th Cir. 2014)).
Defendant first claims that his guilty plea was not voluntary. But Defendant offers only a
conclusory 	assertion 	and 	identifies 	no 	specific 	facts 	or 	circumstances 	undermining 	the
voluntariness of his plea. The Rule 11 record, however, reflects that Defendant stated under oath
that nobody attempted to force him to plead guilty and that he was pleading guilty of his own free
will because he was in fact guilty. (Doc. 88 at 5.) The record further reflects that Defendant
understood the nature of the charges against him, the penalties he faced, and the rights he was
waiving by pleading guilty. Id. at 6–11. In addition, after the Government recited the factual basis
for the plea, Defendant admitted the conduct described by the Government and again stated that
he was pleading guilty. Id. at 11–14.
Defendant next claims that his plea should be withdrawn because he had ineffective
assistance of counsel. “Defense counsel's performance can serve as the requisite ‘fair and just
reason’ for withdrawal only if [the defendant] demonstrates both that his attorney's performance
Case 6:23-cr-03140-SRB Document 90 Filed 04/22/26 Page 2 of 4

3
was deficient and that he was prejudiced by it.” Cruz, 643 F.3d at 642 (quoting United States v.
McMullen, 86 F.3d 135, 137 (8th Cir. 1996)). To establish deficient performance, “the defendant
must show that counsel's representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.” Id.
(quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687–88 (1984)). To show prejudice, the
defendant must prove “that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's errors, he would
not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial.” Id. (quoting McMullen, 86 F.3d
at 137).
Defendant alleges ineffective assistance only in conclusory terms and identifies no specific
act or omission by counsel. Defendant does not provide any facts demonstrating that his counsel’s
representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness. The Rule 11 record reflects that
Defendant stated under oath that he had spoken to his attorney about his case, his attorney had
done everything Defendant asked him to do, Defendant had no questions, concerns, or complaints
about his attorney’s legal advice, and Defendant was fully satisfied with his counsel and
representation. (Doc. 88 at 5.) Defendant does not allege or demonstrate that but for counsel’s
alleged errors he would have insisted on going to trial. This omission is particularly significant
given that Defendant entered his guilty plea during the course of his jury trial, after the Government
had begun presenting evidence.
Defendant’s allegations that his guilty plea was not voluntary and that his counsel was
ineffective contradict his statements at his change of plea hearing and are therefore inherently
unreliable. Because Defendant’s motion consists solely of conclusory allegations unsupported by
any specific facts, and because those allegations directly contradict his sworn Rule 11 statements,
the motion may be denied without an evidentiary hearing. Defendant has not shown a fair and just
reason for requesting the withdrawal. For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby RECOMMENDED
Case 6:23-cr-03140-SRB Document 90 Filed 04/22/26 Page 3 of 4

4
that Defendant’s Motion to Withdraw Plea of Guilty be DENIED.
/s/ David P. Rush
DAVID P. RUSH
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
DATE: April 22, 2026
Case 6:23-cr-03140-SRB Document 90 Filed 04/22/26 Page 4 of 4