United States v. Jahmal Green , 256 F. App'x 883 ( 2007 )


Menu:
  •                      United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 07-1344
    ___________
    United States,                          *
    *
    Appellee,                  *
    * Appeal from the United States
    v.                                * District Court for the
    * Northern District of Iowa.
    Jahmal Green, also known as             *
    Cheeseburger,                           * [UNPUBLISHED]
    *
    Appellant.                 *
    ___________
    Submitted: December 7, 2007
    Filed: December 13, 2007
    ___________
    Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    Jahmal Green pleaded guilty to distributing .69 grams of a mixture or substance
    containing a detectable amount of cocaine base (crack cocaine) within 1,000 feet of
    a protected location after having been previously convicted of one or more felony
    drug offenses, in violation of 
    21 U.S.C. §§ 841
    (a)(1), 851, and 860(a). The district
    court1 sentenced Green to a mandatory term of life in prison because he had two or
    more prior convictions for felony drug offenses. See 
    21 U.S.C. § 841
    (b)(1)(A) (if any
    1
    The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge, United States District Court for
    the Northern District of Iowa.
    person violates § 860 after two or more convictions for felony drug offenses, that
    person shall be sentenced to mandatory term of life imprisonment). On appeal,
    Green’s counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v.
    California, 
    386 U.S. 738
     (1967). For the reasons discussed below, we grant counsel’s
    motion and affirm.
    Counsel argues that the district court erred in accepting Green’s guilty plea
    because he did not fully understand that the plea would result in a mandatory sentence
    of life in prison. In a pro se appellate filing, Green also contends that he did not
    understand his plea. Additionally, he challenges his life sentence, claiming that his
    previous drug offenses were “minor,” and asserts that his attorney incorrectly advised
    him to plead guilty.
    We conclude that Green cannot first challenge his guilty plea in a direct
    criminal appeal. See United States v. Villareal-Amarillas, 
    454 F.3d 925
    , 932 (8th Cir.
    2006) (if defendant fails to attempt to withdraw guilty plea in district court, claim that
    guilty plea was not knowing and intelligent is not cognizable on appeal), cert. denied,
    
    127 S. Ct. 989
     (2007). We also conclude that the district court did not commit error,
    plain or otherwise, when it sentenced Green to life in prison based on his previous
    felony drug offenses. See 
    21 U.S.C. § 802
    (44) (“felony drug offense” means federal
    or state offense that prohibits or restricts conduct relating to drugs and is punishable
    by imprisonment for more than one year); United States v. Patterson, 
    481 F.3d 1029
    ,
    1034 (8th Cir. 2007) (failure to raise issue at sentencing results in plain-error review
    on appeal). Finally, to the extent Green is claiming ineffective assistance of counsel,
    we decline to review his claim in this direct appeal. See United States v. Ramirez-
    Hernandez, 
    449 F.3d 824
    , 826-27 (8th Cir. 2006) (declining to review ineffective
    assistance of counsel claim on direct appeal; claim is more properly raised in separate
    motion under 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
    ).
    -2-
    After carefully reviewing the record in accordance with Penson v. Ohio, 488
    US. 75 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues.
    Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and we affirm.
    ______________________________
    -3-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 07-1344

Citation Numbers: 256 F. App'x 883

Judges: Wollman, Colloton, Benton

Filed Date: 12/13/2007

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024