United States v. Daman Julian

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
• Decided: April 20, 2022
• Docket: 21-3014
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 21-3014 ___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Daman Charles Julian

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Eastern ____________

Submitted: April 15, 2022 Filed: April 20, 2022 [Unpublished] ____________

Before LOKEN, GRUENDER, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. ____________

PER CURIAM.

Daman Julian appeals after he pled guilty to a drug offense and the district 1 court imposed the sentence jointly recommended by the parties. His counsel has

1 The Honorable Stephanie M. Rose, then United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa, now Chief Judge. moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), questioning the substantive reasonableness of Julian’s sentence. Julian has filed a pro se brief challenging his plea and sentence, and asserting that counsel was ineffective. He has also moved for appointment of new counsel.

To the extent Julian challenges the voluntariness of his plea, we conclude that argument is not cognizable on appeal, as Julian did not present it to the district court. See United States v. Washington, 515 F.3d 861, 864 (8th Cir. 2008) (explaining a claim the plea was involuntarily or unknowingly entered is not cognizable on direct appeal where defendant failed to present claim to district court by motion to withdraw guilty plea). We also conclude Julian may not challenge his sentence on appeal because he agreed to the district court’s imposition of the sentence. See United States v. Nguyen, 46 F.3d 781, 783 (8th Cir. 1995) (“A defendant who explicitly and voluntarily exposes himself to specific sentence may not challenge that punishment on appeal.”). Finally, we decline to decide Julian’s claim that counsel was ineffective, as this claim is best addressed in collateral proceedings. See United States v. Ramirez-Hernandez, 449 F.3d 824, 826-27 (8th Cir. 2006).

After independently reviewing the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we grant counsel leave to withdraw, deny Julian’s motion for new counsel, and affirm. ______________________________

-2-