US v. Gerome Fripp
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. GEROME FRIPP, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (4:08-cr-00275-RBH-1)
December 28, 2009
January 25, 2010
Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.
D. Craig Brown, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellant. Rose Mary Sheppard Parham, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Gerome Fripp pled guilty to using and carrying a
firearm during a drug trafficking offense, which resulted in the murder of Vincent Wilson, and aiding and abetting another person in the crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 924(c)(1)(A), (j) (2006). The district court sentenced Fripp to twenty-five years
of imprisonment, based upon the parties' stipulation in the plea agreement. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C). On appeal,
counsel has filed an Anders brief, stating that there are no meritorious issues for appeal but suggesting that the district court failed to comply with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 in accepting Fripp's guilty plea. brief challenging that the Fripp has filed a pro se supplemental voluntariness provided of his guilty plea and The
Government has moved to dismiss the appeal based upon Fripp's waiver of appellate rights. part. Although counsel identifies no error in the plea We affirm in part and dismiss in
colloquy, Fripp asserts in his pro se supplemental brief that he did not knowingly and voluntarily enter his guilty plea. Our
review of the record leads us to conclude that the district court ensured Fripp's guilty plea was knowing and voluntary and
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).
supported by a sufficient factual basis. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116, 119-20 (4th
See United States v. Cir. 1991). Thus,
Fripp's claim that his guilty plea was involuntary is belied by his sworn statements at the plea hearing. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 74 (1977). See Blackledge v.
Moreover, the district court
substantially complied with Rule 11 in accepting Fripp's plea, and the court's failure to inform Fripp that "the agreed
disposition will be included in the judgment," see Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(4), did not amount to plain error. See United
States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002) (providing standard of review). Turning waived the right to to the Government's his to assertion and that Fripp a is
conviction appeal if
knowing and intelligent.
United States v. Poindexter, 492 F.3d Generally, if the district court
263, 270 (4th Cir. 2007).
fully questions a defendant regarding the waiver of his right to appeal during the Rule 11 colloquy, the waiver is both valid and enforceable. United States v. Johnson, 410 F.3d 137, 151 (4th
Cir. 2005); United States v. Wessells, 936 F.2d 165, 167-68 (4th Cir. 1991). Our de novo review of the record convinces us that
the waiver-of-appellate-rights provision in the plea agreement is valid and enforceable. See United States v. Blick, 408 F.3d
162, 168 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating standard of review). 3
challenge to the voluntariness of his guilty plea is not barred by the waiver provision. motion to dismiss in part We therefore deny the Government's and affirm the conviction on the
ground that Fripp voluntarily entered his guilty plea.
Fripp does not challenge his sentence on appeal, any sentencing claim that would have been revealed by our review pursuant to Anders is barred by the waiver-of-appellate-rights provision in the plea agreement. We therefore grant the Government's motion
to dismiss in part and dismiss this portion of the appeal. Finally, brief this that claim counsel falls Fripp asserts in his supplemental assistance. to the pro se
ineffective exception the plea
Because waiver-ofFripp may
raise it on appeal.
However, "[i]neffective assistance claims
are generally not cognizable on direct appeal . . . unless it conclusively appears from the record that defense counsel did not provide effective representation." 523 F.3d 424, 435 (4th Cir. 2008). United States v. Benton, Counsel's ineffectiveness We therefore find
does not conclusively appear from the record.
that Fripp's ineffective assistance claims are not cognizable on direct appeal. In accordance with Anders, we have thoroughly examined the entire record for any potentially meritorious issues not 4
covered by the waiver and have found none.
We therefore affirm This
Fripp's conviction and dismiss the appeal of his sentence.
court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further filed, review. but If the client requests such a that a petition would be be
frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel's motion must state that We dispense with oral
a copy thereof was served on the client.
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART
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?