United States v. Ashley Griggs

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: May 23, 2024
• Docket: 23-4390
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 23-4390 Doc: 45 Filed: 05/23/2024 Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-4390

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ASHLEY LYNN GRIGGS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, Chief District Judge. (4:22-cr-00059-RBH-6)

Submitted: May 21, 2024 Decided: May 23, 2024

Before WYNN and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: James T. McBratney, Jr., MCBRATNEY LAW FIRM, PA, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellant. Lauren L. Hummel, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-4390 Doc: 45 Filed: 05/23/2024 Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:

Ashley Lynn Griggs appeals her conviction and the 120-month sentence imposed

after she pled guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, to conspiracy to possess with intent to

distribute 500 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of

methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), 846. Counsel has

filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), indicating that

he has found no meritorious issues for appeal, but discussing whether the district court

complied with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 in accepting Griggs’ guilty plea. Griggs has filed a pro

se supplemental brief, asserting that counsel was ineffective in that counsel failed to

investigate whether a statement Griggs provided to law enforcement (“the Statement”)

should have been suppressed and likewise failed to seek to suppress the Statement. Griggs

asserts that, because she was on probation for another offense when she gave the Statement,

she could not have waived her right to counsel during questioning without counsel present.

The Government moves to dismiss the appeal based on the appellate waiver in Griggs’ plea

agreement. Upon review, we dismiss in part and affirm in part.

We first conclude that Griggs has waived her right to appeal her conviction and

sentence. A defendant may, in a valid plea agreement, waive the right to appeal under 18

U.S.C. § 3742. See United States v. Wiggins, 905 F.2d 51, 53 (4th Cir. 1990). This court

reviews the validity of an appellate waiver de novo and will enforce the waiver if it is valid

and the issue appealed is within the scope thereof. United States v. Blick, 408 F.3d 162,

168 (4th Cir. 2005).

2 USCA4 Appeal: 23-4390 Doc: 45 Filed: 05/23/2024 Pg: 3 of 4

An appeal waiver is valid if the defendant knowingly and intelligently agreed to the

waiver. Id. at 169. “To determine whether a defendant knowingly and voluntarily agreed

to waive h[er] appellate rights, we look to the totality of the circumstances, including the

defendant’s experience, conduct, educational background and knowledge of his plea

agreement and its terms.” United States v. Carter, 87 F.4th 217, 224 (4th Cir. 2023).

“Generally, . . . if a district court questions a defendant regarding the waiver of appellate

rights during the Rule 11 colloquy and the record indicates that the defendant understood

the full significance of the waiver, the waiver is valid.” Id. (internal quotation marks

omitted). Based on the totality of circumstances in this case, we conclude that Griggs

knowingly and voluntarily entered her guilty plea and understood the waiver. We therefore

grant the Government’s motion to dismiss, in part.

Turning to Griggs’ claim that counsel rendered ineffective assistance, such a claim

is more appropriately considered in a postconviction proceeding brought pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2255, unless counsel’s alleged deficiencies conclusively appear on the record.

See United States v. Kemp, 88 F.4th 539, 546 (4th Cir. 2023) (internal quotation marks

omitted); see also United States v. Campbell, 963 F.3d 309, 319 (4th Cir. 2020) (declining

to consider claim on direct appeal where the “record fail[ed] to ‘conclusively’ show

ineffective assistance”). Because it does not conclusively appear on the record that counsel

rendered ineffective assistance, we decline to consider this claim on direct appeal.

In accordance with our obligations under Anders, we have reviewed the entire

record for any potentially meritorious issues that do not fall within the scope of the appeal

waiver and have found none. Accordingly, we grant the Government’s motion to dismiss,

3 USCA4 Appeal: 23-4390 Doc: 45 Filed: 05/23/2024 Pg: 4 of 4

in part, and dismiss the appeal in part as to all issues falling within the scope of the broad

appeal waiver in Griggs’ plea agreement. We deny the motion, in part, as to any issues

falling within the scope of the appeal waiver and affirm the criminal judgment in part.

This court requires that counsel inform Griggs, in writing, of her right to petition

the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Griggs requests that a petition

be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may

move this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state

that a copy thereof was served on Griggs. We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and

argument would not aid in the decisional process.

DISMISSED IN PART, AFFIRMED IN PART