United States v. Tracy Presson

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedSeptember 7, 2021
Docket21-1733
StatusUnpublished

This text of United States v. Tracy Presson (United States v. Tracy Presson) 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. Tracy Presson, (8th Cir. 2021).

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 21-1733 ___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Tracy Todd Presson

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Springfield ____________

Submitted: September 1, 2021 Filed: September 7, 2021 [Unpublished] ____________

Before LOKEN, COLLOTON, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. ____________

PER CURIAM.

The district court 1 imposed an 840-month prison sentence after Tracy Presson pleaded guilty to sexually exploiting and coercing and enticing a minor. See 18

1 The Honorable Stephen R. Bough, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. U.S.C. §§ 2251(a) (sexual exploitation), 2422(b) (coercion and enticement). In an Anders brief, Presson’s counsel suggests that the district court should have permitted Presson to withdraw his guilty plea. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). In a pro se brief, Presson argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel and that the prosecutor engaged in misconduct.

We conclude that the plea was knowing and voluntary, see Nguyen v. United States, 114 F.3d 699, 703 (8th Cir. 1997) (explaining that a defendant’s statements during the plea hearing carry “a strong presumption of verity”), plea counsel was not ineffective, see id.; United States v. Trevino, 829 F.3d 668, 672 (8th Cir. 2016), and that there is no evidence of prosecutorial misconduct, see United States v. Hunter, 770 F.3d 740, 743 (8th Cir. 2014). We have also independently reviewed the record and conclude that no other non-frivolous issues exist. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82–83 (1988). We accordingly affirm the judgment of the district court and grant counsel permission to withdraw. ______________________________

-2-

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)
Vietchau Nguyen v. United States
114 F.3d 699 (Eighth Circuit, 1997)
United States v. Eric Michelle Hunter
770 F.3d 740 (Eighth Circuit, 2014)
United States v. Enrique Trevino
829 F.3d 668 (Eighth Circuit, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
United States v. Tracy Presson, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-tracy-presson-ca8-2021.