United States v. Baxter , 73 F. App'x 727 ( 2003 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS August 22, 2003
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 02-20487
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
SHANNON BAXTER,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-01-CR-352-2
--------------------
Before JONES, BENAVIDES and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Shannon Baxter appeals his guilty-plea conviction of
bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). We AFFIRM.
After Baxter was sentenced in this case, he pleaded guilty
in a state court to an unrelated robbery charge. The state
court imposed an eight-year sentence which it ordered to run
concurrently with any other sentence.
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
No. 02-20487
-2-
Baxter now contends that his guilty plea to federal bank
robbery is invalid because he is being required to serve his
state-court sentence before the United States Bureau of Prisons
will take custody of him for service of his federal sentence. He
asserts that he was induced to confess to the federal agents and
plead guilty of bank robbery by the state prosecutor’s promise
that his state robbery sentence would run concurrently with his
federal sentence. These assertions contradict Baxter’s testimony
in federal court that his plea of guilty to bank robbery was not
induced by promises or threats of any kind.
No evidence of any promises made to Baxter concerning his
state-court robbery case is before this court, nor has such
evidence been presented to the district court. Although Baxter
relies on the transcript of his guilty-plea proceedings in state
court, those proceedings do not implicate the validity of his
federal bank-robbery conviction. Accordingly, Baxter is not
entitled to relief on the ground that his federal guilty plea is
invalid, because all relevant evidence in the record indicates
that it represents a voluntary and intelligent choice among
the courses of action which were available to him. See United
States v. Brown, 328 F.3d 787, 789 (5th Cir. 2003).
Baxter contends that he received ineffective assistance of
counsel from the lawyer who represented him in the robbery case
in state court. Baxter faults counsel for having allowed him to
plead guilty on the state robbery charge without taking steps
No. 02-20487
-3-
which would have enabled him to serve his two sentences
concurrently. “This claim is not reviewable on direct appeal
because it has not been addressed by the district court, and the
record has not been fully developed.” United States v. Sevick,
234 F.3d 248, 251 (5th Cir. 2000).
AFFIRMED.