Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ronald Jerry WASHINGTON, Defendant-Appellant.
[Unpublished]
Ronald Washington appeals the district court’s 1 denial of his pro se motion to withdraw his guilty plea to a firearm offense. His appellate counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), suggesting the district court abused its discretion in denying Washington’s motion to withdraw his plea based on the alleged ineffective assistance of his prior counsel.
We conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Washington’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea, as his statements at the change-of-plea hearing contradicted his subsequent assertions about counsel’s performance. See United States v. Green, 521 F.3d 929, 931 (8th Cir. 2008) (reviewing denial of motion to withdraw guilty plea for abuse of discretion); United States v. Hughes, 16 F.3d 949, 951 (8th Cir. 1994) (per curiam) (noting defendant’s statements at plea hearing contradicted his assertions in motion to withdraw guilty plea that counsel had been ineffective; concluding defendant’s failure to assert objections to counsel’s performance at plea hearing refuted claim of ineffective assistance of counsel as basis for withdrawing guilty plea); see also Nguyen v. United States, 114 F.3d 699, 703 (8th Cir. 1997) (noting a defendant’s representations during plea-taking carry strong presumption of verity). To the extent Washington intended to raise a free-standing claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, we decline to consider it on direct appeal. See United States v. Ramirez-Hernandez, 449 F.3d 824, 826-27 (8th Cir. 2006) (noting ineffective-assistance claims are usually best litigated in 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceedings).
Having reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we find no non-frivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
FOOTNOTES
1. The Honorable Greg Kays, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.
PER CURIAM.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 19-2863
Decided: June 02, 2020
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)