United States v. Ripoll

Opinions of the United
2005 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
2-2-2005
USA v. Ripoll
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 02-4076
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005
Recommended Citation
"USA v. Ripoll" (2005). 2005 Decisions. Paper 1522.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005/1522
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2005 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
____________
No. 02-4076
____________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
LUZ RIPOLL,
Appellant
____________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Crim. No. 01-305-01)
District Judge: The Honorable J. Curtis Joyner, Jr.
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
December 7, 2004
BEFORE: AM BRO and VAN ANTWERPEN, Circuit Judges,
and SHADUR, District Judge*
(Filed: February 2, 2005)
OPINION
__________
*Honorable Milton I. Shadur, United States District Judge for the Northern District of
Illinois, sitting by designation.
SHADUR, District Judge
Luz Ripoll (“Ripoll”), pursuant to a written plea agreement, pleaded guilty to the
charge of possession with intent to distribute heroin in a protected zone in violation of 21
U.S.C. §860. She was sentenced to 100 months imprisonment, eight years of supervised
release, a fine of $1,000 and a special assessment of $100. Ripoll now appeals that
conviction and sentence.
Following a review of the record and relevant caselaw, Ripoll’s appointed counsel
Todd Henry has moved to withdraw pursuant to the well-known teaching of Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967):
Of course, if counsel finds his case to be wholly frivolous, after a
conscientious examination of it, he should so advise the court and request
permission to withdraw. That request must, however, be accompanied by a
brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the
appeal.
In turn, this Circuit’s Local Appellate Rule (“LAR”) 109.2(a) implements the Anders
command. With the briefs called for by that rule having been submitted,1 we engage in a
twofold inquiry (United States v. Youla, 241 F.3d 296, 300 (3d Cir. 2001)):
(1) whether counsel adequately fulfilled the rule’s requirements; and (2)
whether an independent review of the record presents any nonfrivolous
issues.
Attorney Henry has fulfilled LAR 109.2(a)’s requirements. First his brief correctly
1
Although Ripoll sought and was granted an extension of time within which to file a
pro se brief as contemplated by the LAR, she has not submitted anything on her own
behalf.
2
observes that United States v. Broce, 488 U.S. 563 (1989) limits the claims a defendant
convicted pursuant to a plea of guilty may bring to those attacking (1) the jurisdiction of
the court accepting the plea, (2) the validity of the plea as judged by applicable
constitutional and statutory standards and (3) the legality of the sentence. Next attorney
Henry identifies these as Ripoll’s only potential claims (in addition to setting out the
relevant record excerpts in the appendix to the Brief):
1. as to jurisdiction, the sufficiency of the indictment in setting forth all of
the essential elements of the charged offense;
2. as to the validity of the guilty plea, its compliance with the standards of
Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (1969) and Fed. R. Crim. P. 11; and
3. as to the legality of the sentence, its conformity to 21 U.S.C. §860 and
(assuming their applicability) to the United States Sentencing Guidelines.
Finally, the Anders brief considers those excerpts and the relevant caselaw and spells out
why none of the potential claims has merit here. We conclude that Henry has both
“thoroughly scoured the record in search of appealable issues” and “explain[ed] why
those issues are frivolous” (United States v. Marvin, 211 F.3d 778, 780 (3d Cir. 2000),
citing United States v. Tabb, 125 F.3d 583, 585 (7 th Cir. 1997)).
Because counsel thus fulfilled his Anders obligations, our own review of the
record is guided by the Anders brief itself (Youla, 241 F.3d at 301, approving the
standard announced in United States v. Wagner, 103 F.3d 551, 553 (7 th Cir. 1996)). In
3
that respect, the only matter that calls for specific mention is the potential effect or lack of effect
of the recent opinions of the United States Supreme Court in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S.
__, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005) which have expressly been declared applicable to cases (such as this
one) currently on appeal (id. at 769).
On that score, Ripoll’s factual acknowledgments in her guilty plea satisfy the
constitutional requirement set out in Justice Stevens’ majority opinion for the Court (requiring
either a jury verdict or a defendant’s admissions, rather than a judicial determination, on matters
that would enhance the sentence beyond the Guidelines maximum). In this instance Ripoll’s
admissions conform both to that constitutional requirement and to the Guidelines, whose validity
as advisory, rather than mandatory, has been upheld in Justice Breyer’s majority opinion.
After independently reviewing the portions of the record to which the Anders brief
refers, we therefore agree that there are no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly,
we GRANT counsel’s motion to withdraw and AFFIRM Ripoll’s conviction and
sentence.
4