United States v. Corey McKinney

Eighth Circuit

United States v. Corey McKinney

577 F. App'x 631

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedOctober 3, 2014

Docket13-3121

StatusUnpublished

This text of 577 F. App'x 631 (United States v. Corey McKinney) 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. Corey McKinney, 577 F. App'x 631 (8th Cir. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

After Corey McKinney pleaded guilty to production of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a), and sex trafficking of a child, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1591(a) and (b)(2), the district court 1 sentenced him to concurrent terms of 15 years and life in prison, respectively. In this direct appeal, 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 McKinney has filed multiple pro se supplemental briefs.

Addressing the arguments raised, we first conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying McKinney’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea, which was based on unsupported assertions that his plea was entered in ignorance and without full discovery. See United States v. Alvarado, 615 F.3d 916, 920 (8th Cir.2010) (trial court can deny motion to withdraw guilty plea if allegations in motion are inherently unreliable, are not supported by specific facts, or are not grounds for withdrawal even if true). In addition, the plea stipulations establish a factual basis for the convictions, and the plea transcript shows that McKinney, who was found competent to proceed, entered into the plea agreement knowingly and voluntarily, aware of the possible sentence he faced. McKinney’s ineffective-assistance claims are more appropriately raised in proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, see United States v. McAdory, 501 F.3d 868,

*632 872-73 (8th Cir.2007), and his remaining arguments are foreclosed by his valid guilty plea, see United States v. Smith, 422 F.3d 715, 724 (8th Cir.2005), including his arguments about witness testimony, the validity of searches and admissibility of evidence, and the government’s burden of proof.

After reviewing the record independently in accordance with Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We also grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and deny McKinney’s motion to enlarge the record.

1

. The Honorable David Gregory Kays, 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.

After Corey McKinney pleaded guilty to production of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a), and sex trafficking of a child, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1591(a) and (b)(2), the district court 1 sentenced him to concurrent terms of 15 years and life in prison, respectively. In this direct appeal, 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 McKinney has filed multiple pro se supplemental briefs.

Addressing the arguments raised, we first conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying McKinney’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea, which was based on unsupported assertions that his plea was entered in ignorance and without full discovery. See United States v. Alvarado, 615 F.3d 916, 920 (8th Cir.2010) (trial court can deny motion to withdraw guilty plea if allegations in motion are inherently unreliable, are not supported by specific facts, or are not grounds for withdrawal even if true). In addition, the plea stipulations establish a factual basis for the convictions, and the plea transcript shows that McKinney, who was found competent to proceed, entered into the plea agreement knowingly and voluntarily, aware of the possible sentence he faced. McKinney’s ineffective-assistance claims are more appropriately raised in proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, see United States v. McAdory, 501 F.3d 868,

*632 872-73 (8th Cir.2007), and his remaining arguments are foreclosed by his valid guilty plea, see United States v. Smith, 422 F.3d 715, 724 (8th Cir.2005), including his arguments about witness testimony, the validity of searches and admissibility of evidence, and the government’s burden of proof.

After reviewing the record independently in accordance with Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We also grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and deny McKinney’s motion to enlarge the record.

1

. The Honorable David Gregory Kays, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

577 F. App'x 631, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-corey-mckinney-ca8-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack