US v. Joel Henry
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JOEL EUGENE HENRY, a/k/a Sleepy, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (5:06-cr-00022-RLV-CH-1)
June 9, 2009
July 6, 2009
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert L. Cooper, COOPER, DAVIS & COOPER, Fayetteville, North Carolina, for Appellant. Thomas Richard Ascik, Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorneys, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Joel Eugene Henry pled guilty pursuant to a written plea agreement fifty to conspiracy or more to of possess cocaine with base intent and to five
kilograms or more of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2006), and was sentenced to 210 months in prison. appealed. Counsel for Henry filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), certifying that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal, but questioning whether trial counsel provided ineffective assistance. a supplemental was pro se letter that also no Henry has filed his trial we Henry timely
ineffective for withdrawing his objections to two enhancements in the presentence in a report when the in objections offense could level. have At
sentencing, counsel explained that he withdrew the objections because the seven-level departure that the Government was
recommending for Henry's substantial assistance resulted in a much a larger sentence decrease. Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are
generally not cognizable on direct appeal. 2
United States v.
King, 119 F.3d 290, 295 (4th Cir. 1997). assistance U.S.C.A. claims § 2255 are (West appropriately Supp. 2008)
Instead, ineffective pursuant for to 28
development of the factual record.
A defendant may raise
an ineffective assistance claim on direct appeal only if the record conclusively demonstrates that defense counsel did not provide effective representation. 434 F.3d 233, a 239 (4th Cir. United States v. Baldovinos, To prove ineffective counsel's of
reasonableness" and (2) "that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different." Strickland v.
Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688, 694 (1984). Here, the sentencing record does not conclusively
demonstrate that counsel was ineffective.
Counsel's decision to
withdraw the objections to the enhancements was tactical, and thus is entitled 466 to a at strong 689. presumption Nor does of Henry reasonableness. demonstrate a
reasonable probability that the court would have lowered his sentencing withdrawn guidelines the range any further if counsel record had does not not
conclusively demonstrate ineffective assistance, this claim is not cognizable on direct appeal. * In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court's judgment. This court
requires that counsel inform Henry, in writing, of the right to petition review. the Supreme Court of the United States for further
If Henry requests that a petition be filed, but counsel
believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from
Counsel's motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on Henry. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions the court are and adequately argument presented not in aid the the materials decisional
Under like reasoning, Henry's pro se contention that his trial counsel afforded ineffective representation must be raised in an appropriate post-conviction proceeding rather than on direct appeal. We find no merit to the remaining issues Henry raises in his pro se submission.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?