United States v. Adrian Barrett

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 12-2459
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Adrian U. Barrett
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City
____________
Submitted: January 18, 2013
Filed: January 18, 2013
[Unpublished]
____________
Before LOKEN, MELLOY, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Adrian Barrett directly appeals after he pled guilty to a drug charge and the
district court1 sentenced him to the statutory-minimum prison term. His counsel has
1
The Honorable Fernando J. Gaitan Jr., Chief Judge, United States District
Court for the Western District of Missouri.
filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and requests leave to
withdraw. In the Anders brief, counsel raises the following issues: (1) whether the
district court erred in accepting Barrett’s guilty plea, because it was “not voluntarily
made” due to Barrett’s lack of understanding, and (2) whether Barrett received
ineffective assistance of counsel. Regarding the first issue, counsel notes that Barrett
indicated at his sentencing hearing that he believed his plea was not valid.
Upon careful review, this court concludes that the district court did nothing
improper in accepting Barrett’s guilty plea. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b) (setting forth
steps that must be taken by district court before accepting guilty plea). In addition,
to the extent Barrett’s appeal may be construed as asserting that he should have been
permitted to withdraw his guilty plea at the sentencing hearing, this court again
concludes that the district court did nothing improper. Cf. United States v. Osei, 679
F.3d 742, 746-47 (8th Cir. 2012) (concluding that denial of motion to withdraw guilty
plea was not an abuse of discretion in light of statements made by defendant during
his change-of-plea hearing); Nguyen v. United States, 114 F.3d 699, 703 (8th Cir.
1997) (defendant’s statements during plea hearing are entitled to strong presumption
of verity).
This court declines to address Barrett’s ineffective-assistance claim on direct
appeal. See United States v. McAdory, 501 F.3d 868, 872-73 (8th Cir. 2007)
(appellate court ordinarily defers ineffective-assistance claim to 28 U.S.C. § 2255
proceedings).
Finally, having independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488
U.S. 75 (1988), this court finds no nonfrivolous issues. Counsel’s motion to
withdraw is granted and the judgment of the district court is affirmed.
______________________________
-2-