UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. LESLIE ANTHONY BAILEY (2026)

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO WITHDRAW GUILTY PLEA [ECF No. 82]

Before the Court is the motion of Defendant Leslie Anthony Bailey to withdraw his guilty plea.¹ The Court conducted a hearing on the instant Motion in June 2026. After considering the papers filed in support and in opposition,² as well as the argument of counsel during the hearing, the Court DENIES Bailey's Motion, for the reasons set forth below.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Plea Agreement and Guilty Plea

In March 2024, the grand jury handed up an indictment charging Baily with the following five counts:

• sex trafficking by force and coercion in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1591(a)(1) & (b)(1);

• kidnapping in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1201(a)(1) & (a)(2);

• aggravated sexual abuse by force and threat in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2241(a);

• use of a facility in interstate commerce in aid of unlawful activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1952(a)(3); and

• aiding and abetting and causing an act to be done in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2.3

On April 10, 2025, the Government filed a Plea Agreement that was purportedly signed by Bailey.⁴ The Plea Agreement provided that Bailey would plead guilty to Count 1—sex trafficking by force and coercion—and that the Government would dismiss the remaining counts and agree not to prosecute Bailey further for violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1591(a)(1).⁵

On April 25, 2025, the Court conducted a change-of-plea hearing ⁶ at which, after Bailey was placed under oath, the Court accepted Bailey's plea of guilty to Count 1.⁷ That colloquy included the following exchange:

THE COURT: Did you sign the plea agreement on page 22, line 18?

BAILEY: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: That's your signature?

BAILEY: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: And did you sign it there on April 9th, 2025?

BAILEY: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: And did you also sign it on the next page, page 23, between lines 13 and 14?

BAILEY: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: And did you also sign it there on April 9th, 2025?

BAILEY: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: Do you believe that you understand the terms of the plea agreement?

BAILEY: Yes, sir.8

․

THE COURT: Do you believe that you understand everything that has happened at this hearing today?

BAILEY: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Do you believe that you understand everything that has been said by the lawyers and by me?

BAILEY: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: Do you believe that you understand the consequences to you of a guilty plea?

BAILEY: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: Do you in your own mind believe that you are competent to make the decision to plead guilty?

BAILEY: Yes, sir.9

․

THE COURT: So having in mind all that we've discussed regarding your plea of guilty including the rights that you will be giving up and the maximum sentence that you may receive, the minimum sentence that you will receive, do you still want to plead guilty?

BAILEY: Yes, sir.10

After the Government's counsel recited the factual basis that the Government represented that it was prepared to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, if the case proceeded to trial, the plea colloquy continued:

THE COURT: Mr. Bailey, do you understand what the prosecutor just said?

BAILEY: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: Is everything that she said, including what she said about you and about your conduct and about your intent, is all of that true and correct?

BAILEY: Yes. Yes, sir.

․

THE COURT: Okay. This is important, because I'm asking you to admit absolutely everything the prosecutor just described. She has represented what the Government would be prepared to prove at trial beyond a reasonable doubt, and I'm asking you is she right?

BAILEY: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: Is everything that she said about you and your conduct and your intent is all of that correct?

BAILEY: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: Are you pleading guilty because you did the things that the prosecutor described?

BAILEY: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: Are you pleading guilty because you are guilty?

BAILEY: Yes, sir.11

B. Sentencing Hearing and Motion to Withdraw as Counsel

On July 18, 2025, the Government learned that “J.H.”—one of the victims of Bailey's alleged crimes—had passed away, and consequently, pursuant to a stipulation of the parties, the Court continued the sentencing hearing to September 19, 2025.¹² In view of the death of Victim J.H., Bailey requested that the Government modify the plea agreement to resolve the case on a non-trafficking charge.¹³ The Government refused.¹⁴ Accordingly, the sentencing hearing proceeded as scheduled on September 19, 2025.

At that hearing, Bailey represented to the Court that, despite his testimony under oath at the change-of-plea hearing, he had not signed the Plea Agreement, but, rather, his then-counsel, attorney Jonathan Evans, had signed Bailey's name.¹⁵ Bailey asserted that Mr. Evans had instructed him that if the Court asked, Bailey should say that he—Bailey—had signed the Plea Agreement.¹⁶ Furthermore, Bailey stated that at the change-of-plea hearing he had not understood what he was agreeing to and that he did not want to plead guilty to the charge of sex trafficking with force.¹⁷ In view of Bailey's statements, the Court continued the sentencing hearing to October 2, 2025.¹⁸ Mr. Evans then moved to withdraw as Bailey's counsel,¹⁹ and the Court further continued the sentencing hearing.²⁰

At the hearing on Mr. Evans's motion to withdraw as counsel, Mr. Evans admitted that on April 10, 2025, after conferring with Bailey and Bailey's family regarding the Government's plea offer, Mr. Evans had “sign[ed] the agreement for [Bailey] with [Bailey's] authorization ․ and then filed it with the Court.”²¹ Mr. Evans also confirmed that he had advised Bailey “that if the judge asks you if that's your signature on the plea agreement say yes, because it was signed at your authority.”²² The Court granted Mr. Evans's motion to withdraw and appointed new counsel for Bailey.²³ Bailey then filed the instant Motion to withdraw his guilty plea.²⁴

II. LEGAL STANDARD

The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure allow a defendant to withdraw a guilty plea for a “fair and just reason.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(d)(2). “Although the defendant has the burden of demonstrating a fair and just reason, the ‘fair and just’ standard is applied liberally.” United States v. Yamashiro, 788 F.3d 1231, 1237 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing United States v. Davis, 428 F.3d 802, 805 (9th Cir. 2005), and United States v. Bonilla, 637 F.3d 980, 983 (9th Cir. 2011)). Fair and just reasons warranting the withdrawal of a guilty plea include: (1) an inadequate Rule 11 plea colloquy; (2) newly discovered evidence; (3) intervening circumstances; or (4) any other reasons for withdrawing the plea that did not exist when defendant entered the plea. See United States v. Showalter, 569 F.3d 1150, 1154 (9th Cir. 2009).

III. ANALYSIS

Bailey argues that Mr. Evans's misrepresentations to the Court about Bailey's signature on the Plea Agreement, and Mr. Evans's attendant counsel that Bailey lie to the Court, constitute a fair and just reason to allow Bailey to withdraw his guilty plea. Bailey asserts that “[a] guilty plea, based on lies to the Court should not ever be allowed to stand.”²⁵

Neither Mr. Evans's signature of Bailey's name on the Plea Agreement, nor Mr. Evans's advice to Bailey that Bailey testify that he signed the Plea Agreement, constitutes a “fair and just” ground for Bailey to withdraw his guilty plea. In the Ninth Circuit, “[a] criminal defendant may not withdraw his plea without offering a good-faith ‘new’ reason for doing so.” United States v. Hernandez, 105. F.4th 1234, 1239 (9th Cir. 2024); see also United States v. McTiernan, 546 U.S. 1160, 1167 (9th Cir. 2008). Bailey perfunctorily denies engaging in “gamesmanship” and argues that “[t]he instant case does not present a simple change of mind.”²⁶ However, Bailey does not, and cannot, argue that he discovered Mr. Evans's dishonesty after his guilty plea was accepted. Mr. Evans advised Bailey to lie to the Court before Bailey pleaded guilty and then lied to the Court during Bailey's plea colloquy. Bailey was aware of those facts when he pleaded guilty. Thus, Bailey has not met his burden of providing a “ ‘new’ reason” for withdrawing his plea. See id.

Separately, and apart from Mr. Evans's dishonesty to the Court and his advice that Bailey lie to the Court, the very fact that Bailey did not personally sign the Plea Agreement does not per se render Bailey's guilty plea null and void. A plea agreement is distinct from a guilty plea, and the absence of Bailey's signature on the Plea Agreement—as opposed to Mr. Evans's signature on Bailey's behalf—does not undermine the validity of Bailey's oral guilty plea before the Court. During the colloquy, Bailey affirmed his understanding of the factual basis for the guilty plea, the consequences of his under-oath admission of those facts, and his desire to enter the guilty plea. Likewise, the falsity of Bailey's assertion that he signed the Plea Agreement does not, per se, negate the validity of the rest of his plea colloquy. Thus, the Court is satisfied that no aspect of Mr. Evans's misconduct or Bailey's misrepresentation, which bore on the Plea Agreement, renders Bailey's guilty plea defective.

In sum, Bailey has failed to carry his burden to show that it would be “fair and just” for him to withdraw his plea. Accordingly, Bailey's Motion is DENIED.

IV. DISPOSITION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby ORDERS as follows:

1. Bailey's instant Motion to withdraw his guilty plea [ECF No. 82] is DENIED.

2. The Sentencing Hearing is SET for November 6, 2026, at 2:00 p.m. Counsel for parties are DIRECTED to appear in person in Courtroom 9D, on the 9th Floor of the Ronald Reagan Federal Building and United States Courthouse at 411 W. Fourth Street Santa Ana, California, at that date and time.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Def.'s Mot. to Withdraw Plea of Guilty (the “Motion”) [ECF No. 82].

2.   The Court considered the documents of record in this action, including the following papers: (1) Motion; (2) Pl.'s Opp'n to the Motion (the “Opposition”) [ECF No. 96 (Sealed)]; and (3) Plea Agreement [ECF No. 36].

3.   Indictment [ECF No. 1].

4.   See Plea Agreement.

5.   Id. at ¶¶ 2(a), 3(c), & 3(f).

6.   Mins. of Change-of-Plea Hr'g [ECF No. 38].

7.   Motion, Ex. D (the “Change-of-Plea Transcript”) [ECF No. 82-3].

8.   Id. at 19:5-22.

9.   Id. at 27:11-22.

10.   Id. at 28:4-9.

11.   Id. at 31:15-32:18.

12.   Stipulation to Continue Scheduling Hr'g [ECF No. 43].

13.   Decl. of Kristin Spencer (the “Spencer Declaration”) [ECF No. 96], Ex. 6.

14.   Id.

15.   Tr. of Sentencing Hr'g [ECF No. 61] 16:19-17:21.

16.   Id. at 17:1-2.

17.   Id. at 17:24-19:10.

18.   Min. Order re Sentencing Hr'g [ECF No. 48].

19.   Mot. to Withdraw as Counsel [ECF No. 53].

20.   Scheduling Notice [ECF No. 54].

21.   Motion, Ex. B (the “Motion to Withdraw Transcript”) [ECF No. 87 (Sealed)] 7:6-21.

22.   Id. at 7:22-8:3.

23.   Min. Order re Mot. to Withdraw as Counsel [ECF No. 69].

24.   See Motion.

25.   Id. at 9:13-14. In its Opposition, the Government argues that Bailey should not be permitted to withdraw his guilty plea because Mr. Evans did not provide Bailey with ineffective assistance of counsel. However, Bailey does not contend that Mr. Evans rendered ineffective assistance of counsel.

26.   Id. at 10:2-8 & 11:3-4.

John W. Holcomb UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE