Aaron Shelton v. United States

Eighth Circuit

Aaron Shelton v. United States

108 F.3d 977, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 5493, 1997 WL 135730

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedMarch 24, 1997

Docket96-2389

StatusPublished

This text of 108 F.3d 977 (Aaron Shelton v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Aaron Shelton v. United States, 108 F.3d 977, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 5493, 1997 WL 135730 (8th Cir. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Aaron Shelton appeals the district court’s 1 denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. In his motion, Shelton alleged his appellate counsel was ineffective in that he “misled and tricked” Shelton into entering a conditional guilty plea by indicating he would appeal the denial of Shelton’s suppression motion, and then failing to include this issue in Shelton’s direct appeal.

On direct appeal, Shelton’s counsel filed, and we accepted, Shelton’s pro se brief, which raised Shelton’s suppression claims. Although our opinion in that case did not specifically address these arguments, see United States v. Shelton, 66 F.3d 991 (8th Cir.1995) (per curiam), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 1364, 134 L.Ed.2d 530 (1996), we considered and rejected them both on direct appeal and in denying Shelton’s pro se petition for rehearing. Therefore, we conclude the district court did not err in denying Shelton’s motion without an evidentiary hearing. See Engelen v. United States, 68 F.3d 238, 241 (8th Cir.1995); United States v. Duke, 50 F.3d 571, 576 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, *978 - U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 224, 133 L.Ed.2d 154 (1995).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

1

. The Honorable Stephen N. Limbaugh, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Aaron Shelton appeals the district court’s 1 denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. In his motion, Shelton alleged his appellate counsel was ineffective in that he “misled and tricked” Shelton into entering a conditional guilty plea by indicating he would appeal the denial of Shelton’s suppression motion, and then failing to include this issue in Shelton’s direct appeal.

On direct appeal, Shelton’s counsel filed, and we accepted, Shelton’s pro se brief, which raised Shelton’s suppression claims. Although our opinion in that case did not specifically address these arguments, see United States v. Shelton, 66 F.3d 991 (8th Cir.1995) (per curiam), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 1364, 134 L.Ed.2d 530 (1996), we considered and rejected them both on direct appeal and in denying Shelton’s pro se petition for rehearing. Therefore, we conclude the district court did not err in denying Shelton’s motion without an evidentiary hearing. See Engelen v. United States, 68 F.3d 238, 241 (8th Cir.1995); United States v. Duke, 50 F.3d 571, 576 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, *978 - U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 224, 133 L.Ed.2d 154 (1995).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

1

. The Honorable Stephen N. Limbaugh, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

108 F.3d 977, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 5493, 1997 WL 135730, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/aaron-shelton-v-united-states-ca8-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack