US v. Andre Michael Harper
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 4:14-cr-00045-RGD-LRL-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999729823].. [15-4167]
Appeal: 15-4167
Doc: 29
Filed: 01/05/2016
Pg: 1 of 4
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-4167
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ANDRE MICHAEL HARPER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Newport News. Robert G. Doumar, Senior
District Judge. (4:14-cr-00045-RGD-LRL-1)
Submitted:
October 27, 2015
Decided:
January 5, 2016
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Geremy C. Kamens, Acting Federal Public Defender, Frances H.
Pratt, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Alexandria, Virginia;
Keith Loren Kimball, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Norfolk,
Virginia, for Appellant.
Brian James Samuels, Assistant United
States Attorney, Jennifer Regina Sykes, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 15-4167
Doc: 29
Filed: 01/05/2016
Pg: 2 of 4
PER CURIAM:
Andre Michael Harper appeals the district court’s judgment
after pleading guilty to bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 2113(a)
(2012)
counterfeited
(2012).
and
two
securities
counts
in
of
possessing
violation
of
uttering
U.S.C.
18
and
§ 513(a)
Harper’s attorney filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there are no
meritorious grounds for appeal, but raising the issue of whether
Harper’s guilty plea was knowing and voluntary where he contends
that the district court plainly erred under Fed. R. Crim. P.
11(b)(1)(E).
This court notified Harper of his right to file a
pro se supplemental brief but he has not done so.
We affirm.
“[F]or a guilty plea to be valid, the Constitution imposes
‘the
minimum
requirement
that
[the]
plea
be
expression of [the defendant’s] own choice.’”
the
voluntary
United States v.
Moussaoui, 591 F.3d 263, 278 (4th Cir. 2010) (quoting Brady v.
United States, 397 U.S. 742, 748 (1970)).
“It must reflect ‘a
voluntary and intelligent choice among the alternative courses
of action open to the defendant.’”
v.
Alford,
400
U.S.
25,
31
Id. (quoting North Carolina
(1970)).
“In
evaluating
the
constitutional validity of a guilty plea, courts look to the
totality
of
defendant’s
the
circumstances
solemn
surrounding
declaration
2
of
guilt
[it],
a
granting
the
presumption
of
Appeal: 15-4167
Doc: 29
Filed: 01/05/2016
truthfulness.”
Id.
Pg: 3 of 4
(citation
and
internal
quotation
marks
omitted).
In federal cases, Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal
Procedure “governs the duty of the trial judge before accepting
a
guilty
(1969).
plea.”
Boykin
v.
Alabama,
395
U.S.
238,
243
n.5
Rule 11 “requires a judge to address a defendant about
to enter a plea of guilty, to ensure that he understands the law
of his crime in relation to the facts of his case, as well as
his rights as a criminal defendant.”
United States v. Vonn, 535
U.S. 55, 62 (2002).
We “accord deference to the trial court’s
decision
best
as
to
how
to
conduct
the
mandated
colloquy.”
United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116 (4th Cir. 1991).
Moreover, a guilty plea may be knowingly and intelligently made
based on detailed information received before the plea hearing.
See id. at 117; see also Bradshaw v. Stumpf, 545 U.S. 175, 183
(2005) (trial court may rely on counsel’s assurance that the
defendant was properly informed of the elements of the crime).
When a defendant does not seek to withdraw his guilty plea
in the district court, we review any claims that the court erred
at his guilty plea hearing for plain error.
United States v.
Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 524, 527 (4th Cir. 2002).
It is the
defendant’s burden to show (1) error; (2) that the error was
plain; (3) that the error affected his substantial rights; and
(4) that we should exercise our discretion to notice the error.
3
Appeal: 15-4167
Doc: 29
Filed: 01/05/2016
See id. at 529, 532.
Pg: 4 of 4
To show that the error affects substantial
rights, he “must show a reasonable probability that, but for the
error, he would not have entered the plea.”
United States v.
Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74, 83 (2004).
We have reviewed the record and conclude that Harper fails
to show plain error that affects his substantial rights, and
that
his
totality
guilty
guilty
of
was
plea
the
a
was
knowing
circumstances.
voluntary
and
and
voluntary
Harper’s
intelligent
decision
choice
under
to
among
the
plead
the
alternative courses of action open to him.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record and
have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
affirm the district court’s judgment.
Accordingly, we
This court requires that
counsel inform Harper, in writing, of his right to petition the
Supreme
Court
of
the
United
States
for
further
review.
If
Harper 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
representation.
Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on
Harper.
legal
before
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
contentions
the
court
are
adequately
and
argument
presented
would
not
in
aid
the
the
materials
decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
4
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?