United States v. Julie Hatcher

Filing

PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: Steven M. Colloton, Pasco M. Bowman and Raymond W. Gruender (UNPUBLISHED); Granting [4334359-2] motion to withdraw as counsel filed by Mr. Shawn Blair; Denying all other pending motions. [4366806-2] [4334359-3] [4350268-2] [4434423] [15-3173]

Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 15-3173 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Julie Tina Hatcher lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City ____________ Submitted: August 1, 2016 Filed: August 5,2016 [Unpublished] ____________ Before COLLOTON, BOWMAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Julie Hatcher directly appeals after the district court1 imposed a within-Guidelines-range sentence at a resentencing hearing. Her counsel has moved 1 The Honorable Brian C. Wimes, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. Appellate Case: 15-3173 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/05/2016 Entry ID: 4434423 for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that Hatcher received ineffective assistance of counsel. Hatcher has filed a supplemental brief arguing that she received ineffective assistance of counsel, that the government engaged in prosecutorial misconduct, that she was entitled to resentencing before a different judge, that the court misapplied certain Guidelines enhancements, and that the written judgment incorrectly states the conditions of her supervised release. Hatcher also moves for production of documents and to modify the restitution order. To begin, we decline to address the ineffective-assistance claim on direct appeal. See United States v. Ramirez-Hernandez, 449 F.3d 824, 826-27 (8th Cir. 2006) (ineffective-assistance claims are usually best litigated in collateral proceedings, where record can be properly developed). As to Hatcher’s prosecutorial-misconduct claim, we conclude that the claim is speculative and meritless. See United States v. Bowie, 618 F.3d 802, 818 (8th Cir. 2010) (mere speculation that government file may contain Brady2 material is not sufficient to require remand). As to Hatcher’s argument that she was entitled to resentencing before a different judge, we conclude that her argument lacks merit. As to her argument that the district court erred in its Guidelines calculations, we enforce the appeal waiver contained in Hatcher’s plea agreement. See United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-90 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (discussing enforcement of appeal waivers). As to her assertion that the written judgment incorrectly states her supervised-release conditions, we order the judgment to be modified to reflect the supervised-release conditions that the district court imposed at the resentencing hearing. See United States v. James, 792 F.3d 962, 971 (8th Cir. 2015) (where oral sentence and written judgment conflict, oral sentence controls). 2 See Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). -2- Appellate Case: 15-3173 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/05/2016 Entry ID: 4434423 Having reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no other non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment as modified, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. Finally, Hatcher’s pending motions are denied. ______________________________ -3- Appellate Case: 15-3173 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/05/2016 Entry ID: 4434423

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?