USA v. Carlton Anderson

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Appellant Carlton Anderson. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam. The opinion is also available through the Court's Opinions page at this link http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions.

Case: 15-14756

Date Filed: 08/15/2017

Page: 1 of 3

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 15-14756
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 4:14-cr-00021-CDL-MSH-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
CARLTON ANDERSON,
a.k.a. Carlton Shamar Anderson,
a.k.a. Carlton Jhamr Anderson,
Defendant - Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Georgia
________________________
(August 15, 2017)
Before MARTIN, JORDAN, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

Case: 15-14756

Date Filed: 08/15/2017

Page: 2 of 3

Carlton Anderson appeals the denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty
plea. Mr. Anderson argues that the district court erred because it failed to evaluate
his claim that his counsel rendered ineffective assistance. After careful review, we
affirm.
We review a denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea for abuse of
discretion. See United States v. Brehm, 442 F.3d 1291, 1298 (11th Cir. 2006)
(citation omitted).

A court abuses its discretion if the denial is arbitrary or

unreasonable, see id. (citation omitted), or if it applies an incorrect standard. See
United States v. Izquierdo, 448 F.3d 1269, 1276 (11th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted).
A defendant carries the burden to establish that withdrawal of a guilty plea is
appropriate. See id. (citation omitted).
Our review of the record gives us no basis to reverse. Mr. Anderson simply
failed to establish that he raised an ineffective assistance of legal counsel claim in
his motion to withdraw his guilty plea.

Although Mr. Anderson previously

attempted to raise an ineffective assistance of legal counsel claim through a motion
to vacate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255—a motion which the district court denied
as premature—Mr. Anderson did not pursue this claim in his subsequent motion to
withdraw his plea or at the hearing on that motion. Indeed, the record shows that
Mr. Anderson focused his efforts in the motion and at the hearing on attempting to
show “a fair and just reason for requesting the withdrawal,” Fed. R. Crim. P.

2

Case: 15-14756

Date Filed: 08/15/2017

Page: 3 of 3

11(d)(2)(B), which was the focus of the district court’s inquiry to determine
whether the plea could be withdrawn. See United States v. Buckles, 843 F.2d 469,
472 (11th Cir. 1988) (outlining relevant factors).
The district court never ruled that it could not consider an ineffectiveness
claim in deciding whether to allow the withdrawal of Mr. Anderson’s guilty plea.
And, as we have explained before, this Court “will not generally consider claims of
ineffective assistance of counsel raised on direct appeal where the district court did
not entertain nor develop a factual record.” United States v. Bender, 290 F.3d
1279, 1284 (11th Cir. 2002).
AFFIRMED.

3