United States v. Armard Shields

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 24-1083

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Armard R. Shields

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City

____________

Submitted: May 9, 2024 Filed: May 14, 2024

[Unpublished]

____________

Before SMITH, BENTON, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Armard Shields appeals after he pled guilty to a drug offense. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386

U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the district court’s1 denial of Shields’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea.

Upon careful review, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Shields’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea. United States v. Watson, 883 F.3d 1033, 1037 (8th Cir. 2018) (reviewing denial of motion to withdraw guilty plea for abuse of discretion). While Shields submitted a post-plea letter to the district court stating he was unhappy with his counsel’s performance, he testified during the plea hearing that he was satisfied with counsel’s performance. See United States v. Trevino, 829 F.3d 668, 672 (8th Cir. 2016) (“The failure to assert objections to counsel’s performance at the change-of-plea hearing refutes any claim of ineffective assistance of counsel as a basis for withdrawing the plea.”). Further, Shields’s statements during the plea hearing demonstrate his guilty plea was made knowingly and voluntarily. See United States v. McHenry, 849 F.3d 699, 706 (8th Cir. 2017); United States v. Smith, 422 F.3d 715, 724 (8th Cir. 2005). We also agree with the district court that there was an adequate factual basis for the plea. See United States v. Cheney, 571 F.3d 764, 769 (8th Cir. 2009).

We have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.

75 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm.

______________________________

1 The Honorable Howard F. Sachs, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.