United States v. Ronald Mitchell ( 2019 )


Menu:
  •                  United States Court of Appeals
    For the Eighth Circuit
    ___________________________
    No. 19-1848
    ___________________________
    United States of America
    lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
    v.
    Ronald Mitchell
    lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
    ____________
    Appeal from United States District Court
    for the Southern District of Iowa - Davenport
    ____________
    Submitted: December 20, 2019
    Filed: December 27, 2019
    [Unpublished]
    ____________
    Before STRAS, WOLLMAN, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
    ____________
    PER CURIAM.
    Ronald Mitchell appeals after he pled guilty to drug charges, and the district
    1
    court imposed a sentence consistent with his binding Federal Rule of Criminal
    1
    The Honorable John A. Jarvey, Chief Judge, United States District Court for
    the Southern District of Iowa.
    Procedure 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement. Counsel has moved for leave to withdraw and
    has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
    (1967), acknowledging an
    appeal waiver in the plea agreement, but challenging the sentence as an abuse of
    discretion and substantively unreasonable. Mitchell has filed a pro se brief
    challenging the voluntariness of his plea and the constitutionality of one of his
    offenses of conviction.
    We reject Mitchell’s claim that his plea was involuntary. Although he argues
    that counsel did not adequately investigate his case, thus prompting him to enter into
    the plea agreement because he determined it would be “suicidal” to proceed to trial,
    the record shows that at his plea hearing, Mitchell stated under oath that he was
    satisfied with counsel’s performance; he agreed with the factual basis set forth in the
    plea agreement; and his plea was voluntary. See Nguyen v. United States, 
    114 F.3d 699
    , 703 (8th Cir. 1997) (defendant’s statements made during plea hearing carry
    strong presumption of verity).              To the extent Mitchell has raised
    ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims that require development of matters outside
    the record, this court declines to address them in this direct appeal. See United States
    v. Ramirez-Hernandez, 
    449 F.3d 824
    , 826-27 (8th Cir. 2006) (ineffective-assistance
    claims are best litigated in collateral proceedings, where record can be properly
    developed). As to the remaining issues, we enforce the appeal waiver.2 See 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).
    Having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 
    488 U.S. 75
    (1988), we find no non-frivolous issues for appeal outside the scope of the appeal
    2
    To the extent the arguments in Mitchell’s supplemental pro se brief are not
    covered by the appeal wavier, they have no merit.
    -2-
    waiver. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal, and we grant counsel leave to
    withdraw.
    ______________________________
    -3-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 19-1848

Filed Date: 12/27/2019

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 12/27/2019