United States v. Andrea Crown


PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: James B. Loken, Diana E. Murphy and Lavenski R. Smith (UNPUBLISHED); Granting [4115721-2] motion to withdraw as counsel filed by Mr. C. Douglas Shull, subject to counsel informing appellant about procedures for seeking rehearing or filing a petition for certiorari. [4168113] [13-3148]

Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 13-3148 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Andrea D. Crown lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City ____________ Submitted: June 20, 2014 Filed: June 24, 2014 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and SMITH, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Andrea Crown directly appeals after she pleaded guilty to a drug offense and the district court1 sentenced her to 132 months in prison. In a pro se submission that 1 The Honorable Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. Appellate Case: 13-3148 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/24/2014 Entry ID: 4168113 the court construed as a notice of appeal, Crown raised complaints about her trial counsel, and claimed that before she pleaded guilty, counsel had promised her a sentence far lower than what she received. On appeal, Crown’s newly appointed counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that (1) Crown involuntarily entered into her plea agreement, and (2) the attorney who represented her in the proceedings below rendered ineffective assistance. Neither of these arguments is appropriate for disposition in this direct criminal appeal, however, because neither argument has been developed in proceedings before the district court. See United States v. Hubbard, 638 F.3d 866, 869 (8th Cir. 2011) (this court considers ineffective-assistance claims on direct appeal only if record has been fully developed, counsel’s error is readily apparent, or failure to act would amount to plain miscarriage of justice); United States v. Umanzor, 617 F.3d 1053, 1058, 1060-61 (8th Cir. 2010) (constitutional challenge to plea should be brought in 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceeding, because addressing issue on direct appeal would require speculation about counsel’s performance and defendant’s knowledge). Further, we have carefully reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and we have found no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, subject to counsel informing Crown about procedures for seeking rehearing or filing a petition for certiorari. ______________________________ -2- Appellate Case: 13-3148 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/24/2014 Entry ID: 4168113

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?