United States v. Jaime Moran

681 F. App'x 574
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedMarch 30, 2017
Docket16-2962
StatusUnpublished

This text of 681 F. App'x 574 (United States v. Jaime Moran) 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. Jaime Moran, 681 F. App'x 574 (8th Cir. 2017).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

After Jaime Moran pleaded guilty to a marijuana conspiracy offense, the district court 1 sentenced him to 144 months in prison, in accordance with the parties’ joint sentencing stipulation and recommendation. On appeal, newly appointed counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). For the reasons explained below, we affirm.

Counsel argues that Moran’s guilty plea is not voluntary, because trial counsel failed to challenge the credibility of the government’s informant and to suppress the informant’s incriminating statements. Counsel also argues that trial counsel was ineffective for entering into the joint stipulation and recommendation for a 144-month sentence. Neither of these arguments is properly before us. First, Moran did not seek below to withdraw his guilty plea; and second, both of his arguments are based on ineffective assistance of counsel, which we decline to address in this direct criminal appeal. See United States v. Umanzor, 617 F.3d 1053, 1060-61 (8th Cir. 2010) (where defendant did not move to withdraw guilty plea in district court, he could not challenge voluntariness of plea for first time on direct appeal, and any claim that plea was involuntary needed to be addressed in 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceedings where factual record could be further developed); United States v. Ramirez-Hernandez, 449 F.3d 824, 826-27 (8th Cir. 2006) (ineffective-assistance claims are usually best litigated in collateral proceedings; this court will consider such claims on direct appeal only where record is fully developed, where not to act would amount to plain miscarriage of justice, or where counsel’s error is readily apparent).

Finally, having reviewed the record independently as required under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we find no nonfrivo-lous issues for. appeal. The judgment is ■ affirmed.

1

. The Honorable James E. Gritzner, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Stephen B. Jackson, Jr., United States Magistrate Judge for the Southern District of Iowa.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Anders v. California
386 U.S. 738 (Supreme Court, 1967)
Penson v. Ohio
488 U.S. 75 (Supreme Court, 1988)
United States v. Umanzor
617 F.3d 1053 (Eighth Circuit, 2010)
United States v. Rene Ramirez-Hernandez
449 F.3d 824 (Eighth Circuit, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
681 F. App'x 574, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-jaime-moran-ca8-2017.