United States v. Adrian Barrett

Eighth Circuit

United States v. Adrian Barrett

496 F. App'x 703

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 18, 2013

Docket12-2459

StatusUnpublished

This text of 496 F. App'x 703 (United States v. Adrian Barrett) 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

United States v. Adrian Barrett, 496 F. App'x 703 (8th Cir. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Adrian Barrett directly appeals after he pled guilty to a drug charge and the district court 1 sentenced him to the statutory-minimum prison term. His counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and requests leave to withdraw. In the Anders brief, counsel raises the following issues: (1) whether the district court erred in accepting Barrett’s guilty plea, because it was “not voluntarily made” due to Barrett’s lack of understanding, and (2) whether Barrett received ineffective assistance of counsel. Regarding the first issue, counsel notes that Barrett indicated at his sentencing hearing that he believed his plea was not valid.

Upon careful review, this court concludes that the district court did nothing improper in accepting Barrett’s guilty plea. See Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(b) (setting forth steps that must be taken by district court before accepting guilty plea). In addition, to the extent Barrett’s appeal may be construed as asserting that he should have been permitted to withdraw his guilty plea at the sentencing hearing, this court again concludes that the district court did nothing improper. Cf. United States v. Osei, 679 F.3d 742, 746-47 (8th Cir.2012) (concluding that denial of motion to withdraw guilty plea was not an abuse of discretion in light of statements made by defendant during his change-of-plea hearing); Nguyen v. United States, 114 F.3d 699, 703 (8th Cir.1997) (defendant’s statements during plea hearing are entitled to strong presumption of verity).

This court declines to address Barrett’s ineffective-assistance claim on direct appeal. See United States v. McAdory, 501 F.3d 868, 872-73 (8th Cir.2007) (appellate court ordinarily defers ineffective-assistance claim to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceedings).

Finally, having independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), this court finds no nonfrivolous issues. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted and the judgment of the district court is affirmed.

1

. The Honorable Fernando J. Gaitan Jr., Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri.

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

PER CURIAM.

Adrian Barrett directly appeals after he pled guilty to a drug charge and the district court 1 sentenced him to the statutory-minimum prison term. His counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and requests leave to withdraw. In the Anders brief, counsel raises the following issues: (1) whether the district court erred in accepting Barrett’s guilty plea, because it was “not voluntarily made” due to Barrett’s lack of understanding, and (2) whether Barrett received ineffective assistance of counsel. Regarding the first issue, counsel notes that Barrett indicated at his sentencing hearing that he believed his plea was not valid.

Upon careful review, this court concludes that the district court did nothing improper in accepting Barrett’s guilty plea. See Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(b) (setting forth steps that must be taken by district court before accepting guilty plea). In addition, to the extent Barrett’s appeal may be construed as asserting that he should have been permitted to withdraw his guilty plea at the sentencing hearing, this court again concludes that the district court did nothing improper. Cf. United States v. Osei, 679 F.3d 742, 746-47 (8th Cir.2012) (concluding that denial of motion to withdraw guilty plea was not an abuse of discretion in light of statements made by defendant during his change-of-plea hearing); Nguyen v. United States, 114 F.3d 699, 703 (8th Cir.1997) (defendant’s statements during plea hearing are entitled to strong presumption of verity).

This court declines to address Barrett’s ineffective-assistance claim on direct appeal. See United States v. McAdory, 501 F.3d 868, 872-73 (8th Cir.2007) (appellate court ordinarily defers ineffective-assistance claim to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceedings).

Finally, having independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), this court finds no nonfrivolous issues. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted and the judgment of the district court is affirmed.

1

. The Honorable Fernando J. Gaitan Jr., Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

496 F. App'x 703, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-adrian-barrett-ca8-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack