Clayton Sheldon Creek v. United States

Eighth Circuit

Clayton Sheldon Creek v. United States

41 F.3d 401, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 34134, 1994 WL 677903

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedDecember 5, 1994

Docket94-1568

StatusPublished

This text of 41 F.3d 401 (Clayton Sheldon Creek 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

Clayton Sheldon Creek v. United States, 41 F.3d 401, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 34134, 1994 WL 677903 (8th Cir. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Clayton Sheldon Creek appeals the district court’s 1 dismissal of his petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to set aside and vacate his sentence. We affirm.

Creek pleaded guilty to aggravated sexual abuse in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2241(a) for raping his cousin and was sentenced to 96 months of imprisonment. He subsequently filed this § 2255 action, alleging that he was coerced into pleading guilty, he was denied effective assistance of counsel, the alleged victim did not sign the complaint, and his guilty plea was unlawfully induced. The district court adopted the recommendations and findings of the magistrate judge 2 rejecting Creek’s contentions and dismissed the petition with prejudice.

Creek argued that he was denied effective assistance of counsel because his attorney “coerced” him into pleading guilty by informing him that if he did not do so he could receive life imprisonment. The magistrate judge, after reviewing Creek’s statements made under oath at his change-of-plea hearing, determined that his guilty plea was not coerced but was made voluntarily. Creek also argued that he was denied effective assistance of counsel because his attorney provided incorrect advice concerning his sentence by informing him that he would receive 14 months of imprisonment if he pleaded guilty. The magistrate judge found that Creek’s attorney properly advised him of the appropriate Sentencing Guidelines range for his offense based in part upon a transcript of a conference between Creek and his attorney which was reported by a court reporter. After reviewing the record, we cannot find that the district court erred in adopting the well-reasoned findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge and accordingly we affirm. See 8th Cir.R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable John B. Jones, then Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of South Dakota.

2

. The Honorable Mark A. Moreno, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of South Dakota.

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

PER CURIAM.

Clayton Sheldon Creek appeals the district court’s 1 dismissal of his petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to set aside and vacate his sentence. We affirm.

Creek pleaded guilty to aggravated sexual abuse in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2241(a) for raping his cousin and was sentenced to 96 months of imprisonment. He subsequently filed this § 2255 action, alleging that he was coerced into pleading guilty, he was denied effective assistance of counsel, the alleged victim did not sign the complaint, and his guilty plea was unlawfully induced. The district court adopted the recommendations and findings of the magistrate judge 2 rejecting Creek’s contentions and dismissed the petition with prejudice.

Creek argued that he was denied effective assistance of counsel because his attorney “coerced” him into pleading guilty by informing him that if he did not do so he could receive life imprisonment. The magistrate judge, after reviewing Creek’s statements made under oath at his change-of-plea hearing, determined that his guilty plea was not coerced but was made voluntarily. Creek also argued that he was denied effective assistance of counsel because his attorney provided incorrect advice concerning his sentence by informing him that he would receive 14 months of imprisonment if he pleaded guilty. The magistrate judge found that Creek’s attorney properly advised him of the appropriate Sentencing Guidelines range for his offense based in part upon a transcript of a conference between Creek and his attorney which was reported by a court reporter. After reviewing the record, we cannot find that the district court erred in adopting the well-reasoned findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge and accordingly we affirm. See 8th Cir.R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable John B. Jones, then Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of South Dakota.

2

. The Honorable Mark A. Moreno, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of South Dakota.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

41 F.3d 401, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 34134, 1994 WL 677903, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clayton-sheldon-creek-v-united-states-ca8-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack