United States v. Erich Longie, Jr.

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 22-2450
___________________________
United States of America,
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee,
v.
Erich Longie, Jr.,
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant.
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the District of North Dakota - Eastern
____________
Submitted: December 20, 2022
Filed: January 17, 2023
[Unpublished]
____________
Before COLLOTON, SHEPHERD, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Erich Longie, Jr. appeals after he pleaded guilty to first-degree murder and
child abuse offenses, and the district court1 sentenced him to life in prison. His
1
The Honorable Peter D. Welte, Chief Judge, United States District Court for
the District of North Dakota.
counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging
the denial of Longie’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea.
We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying
Longie’s motion to withdraw his plea, as he failed to show his plea was not knowing
and voluntary, and he did not establish a fair and just reason for withdrawal. See
United States v. Cruz, 643 F.3d 639, 641-42 (8th Cir. 2011). At the change-of-plea
hearing, the district court inquired into Longie’s mental state and thoroughly
explained the consequences of pleading guilty. Longie confirmed under oath that he
was satisfied with his attorney’s representation, that he understood he could not
withdraw his guilty plea, that he understood the minimum and maximum penalties he
faced by pleading guilty, that he committed the offenses, that he had discussed the
consequences of entering into the plea agreement with his attorney, and that no one
had forced or promised him anything to induce him to plead guilty. See United States
v. Pacheco, 641 F.3d 970, 974 (8th Cir. 2011); United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886,
890-91 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc); Nguyen v. United States, 114 F.3d 699, 703 (8th
Cir. 1997).
We have also independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488
U.S. 75 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues falling outside the scope of
the appeal waiver in Longie’s plea agreement. Longie argues that enforcing the
appeal waiver to bar review of his claim concerning withdrawal of the guilty plea
would result in a miscarriage of justice, but we have addressed that claim on the
merits. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Longie’s motion to withdraw his plea,
dismiss the remainder of the appeal based on the appeal waiver, and grant counsel
leave to withdraw.
______________________________
-2-