United States v. Jerrod Marshall

Eighth Circuit

United States v. Jerrod Marshall

559 F. App'x 607

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedJune 6, 2014

Docket13-3470

StatusUnpublished

This text of 559 F. App'x 607 (United States v. Jerrod Marshall) 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. Jerrod Marshall, 559 F. App'x 607 (8th Cir. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Jerrod Lamonte Marshall appeals after he entered into a binding plea agreement under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C), and pled guilty to transporting a minor with the intent that she engage in prostitution. Marshall was sentenced by the district court 1 pursuant to the plea agreement. His counsel filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), which alludes to guilt and sentencing issues, and possible claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. Counsel also discusses the effect of an appeal waiver in the plea agreement. Marshall has filed a pro se brief, arguing that the district court improperly accepted his guilty plea without a sufficient factual basis. Counsel has moved to withdraw.

After careful de novo review, this court enforces the appeal waiver. See United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir.2003) (en banc) (appeal waiver is generally enforceable, and appeal is subject to dismissal, if appeal falls within scope of waiver, defendant entered into both plea agreement and waiver knowingly and voluntarily, and enforcement of waiver would not result in miscarriage of justice); see also United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir.2010) (this court reviews de novo validity and applicability of appeal waiver). An independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), reveals no non-frivolous issues that are both outside the scope of the appeal waiver and appropriate for review on direct appeal. To the extent this case may present non-frivolous ineffective-assistance claims, they are deferred to collateral proceedings. See United States v. Jennings, 662 F.3d 988, 991-92 (8th Cir.2011) (deferring possible ineffective-assistance claims to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceeding where record can be properly developed).

The appeal is dismissed, and counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.

1

. The Honorable Brian C. Wimes, 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

PER CURIAM.

Jerrod Lamonte Marshall appeals after he entered into a binding plea agreement under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C), and pled guilty to transporting a minor with the intent that she engage in prostitution. Marshall was sentenced by the district court 1 pursuant to the plea agreement. His counsel filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), which alludes to guilt and sentencing issues, and possible claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. Counsel also discusses the effect of an appeal waiver in the plea agreement. Marshall has filed a pro se brief, arguing that the district court improperly accepted his guilty plea without a sufficient factual basis. Counsel has moved to withdraw.

After careful de novo review, this court enforces the appeal waiver. See United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir.2003) (en banc) (appeal waiver is generally enforceable, and appeal is subject to dismissal, if appeal falls within scope of waiver, defendant entered into both plea agreement and waiver knowingly and voluntarily, and enforcement of waiver would not result in miscarriage of justice); see also United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir.2010) (this court reviews de novo validity and applicability of appeal waiver). An independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), reveals no non-frivolous issues that are both outside the scope of the appeal waiver and appropriate for review on direct appeal. To the extent this case may present non-frivolous ineffective-assistance claims, they are deferred to collateral proceedings. See United States v. Jennings, 662 F.3d 988, 991-92 (8th Cir.2011) (deferring possible ineffective-assistance claims to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceeding where record can be properly developed).

The appeal is dismissed, and counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.

1

. The Honorable Brian C. Wimes, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

559 F. App'x 607, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-jerrod-marshall-ca8-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack