United States v. Adrian Lacey
This text of United States v. Adrian Lacey (United States v. Adrian Lacey) 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.
Opinion
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________
No. 21-3737 ___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Adrian Lacey
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________
Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Delta ____________
Submitted: May 12, 2022 Filed: May 20, 2022 [Unpublished] ____________
Before SHEPHERD, STRAS, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. ____________
PER CURIAM.
Adrian Lacey, who was counseled below but is now proceeding pro se, appeals after he pleaded guilty to possessing a prohibited object in prison, and the district court1 sentenced him to 6 months in prison. On appeal, Lacey argues that his right to a speedy trial was violated, his guilty plea was involuntary, and his counsel was ineffective.
Upon careful review, we conclude that Lacey waived any speedy trial claim by pleading guilty. See United States v. Cox, 985 F.2d 427, 433 (8th Cir. 1993) (claim that indictment should have been dismissed for violation of the Speedy Trial Act was waived by guilty plea); Speed v. United States, 518 F.2d 75, 76 (8th Cir. 1975) (“it is well settled that a plea of guilty waives any claim to denial of a speedy trial”). Further, the hearing transcript shows that he knowingly and voluntarily entered his guilty plea, despite his later filings asserting that he was innocent. See United States v. Green, 521 F.3d 929, 931 (8th Cir. 2008) (whether a plea was knowing and voluntary is reviewed de novo); Nguyen v. United States, 114 F.3d 699, 703 (8th Cir. 1997) (defendant’s representations during plea-taking carry strong presumption of verity).
Finally, we decline to address Lacey’s ineffective-assistance claim in this direct appeal. See United States v. Hernandez, 281 F.3d 746, 749 (8th Cir. 2002) (generally, ineffective-assistance claim is not cognizable on direct appeal).
Accordingly, we affirm. ______________________________
1 The Honorable D.P. Marshall Jr., Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
-2-
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
United States v. Adrian Lacey, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-adrian-lacey-ca8-2022.