United States v. Diamond Cooper
This text of 688 F. App'x 410 (United States v. Diamond Cooper) 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
Diamond Cooper directly appeals, the sentence the district court 1 imposed’ after he pled guilty, pursuant to a plea agree *411 ment containing an appeal waiver, to drug, money laundering, and firearm offenses. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), questioning whether Cooper’s guilty plea was voluntary, whether the court imposed a reasonable sentence, and whether counsel was effective.
First, we decline to consider Cooper’s ineffective-assistance claim on direct appeal. See United States v. Ramirez-Hernandez, 4 49 F.3d 824, 826-27 (8th Cir. 2006) (ineffective-assistance claims are usually best litigated in collateral proceedings, where the record can be properly developed). We further conclude that Cooper’s involuntary-plea claim is not cognizable on direct appeal because he did not move below to withdraw his guilty plea. See United States v. Foy, 617 F.3d 1029, 1033-34 (8th Cir. 2010) (the claim that defendant’s plea was unknowing or involuntary is not cognizable on direct appeal where defendant failed to move in district court to withdraw his guilty plea).
As to Cooper’s challenge to the reasonableness of his sentence, we conclude that the appeal waiver is valid, applicable, and enforceable. See United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir, 2010) (de novo review of the validity and applicability of appeal waiver); United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (appeal waiver will be enforced if appeal falls within scope of waiver, defendant knowingly and .voluntarily entered into plea agreement and waiver, and enforcing waiver would not result in miscarriage of justice).
In addition, we have independently reviewed the record, pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal outside the scope of the waiver. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal, and we grant counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw.
. The Honorable Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
688 F. App'x 410, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-diamond-cooper-ca8-2017.