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. Michael Charles SARTIN Defendant - Appellant
[Unpublished]
Michael Sartin pleaded guilty to distributing methamphetamine, see 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A)(viii), and received a within-Guidelines-range prison sentence. In an Anders brief, Sartin's counsel asks to withdraw and raises four issues. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Two arise out of statements the district court 1 made at sentencing, the first a remark about a hand grenade in Sartin's possession and the second a reference to the seriousness of his drug-distribution offense. The third and fourth claims are that the court deprived him of the right to speak at sentencing and that trial counsel was ineffective. After considering each issue, we conclude that none entitles him to relief.
The district court did not plainly err when, relying on an uncontested fact from the presentence investigation report, it stated that Sartin possessed a hand grenade. See United States v. Lee, 570 F.3d 979, 982 (8th Cir. 2009). Nor did the court somehow “double count” his drug distribution by characterizing the offense as “serious.” See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1) (requiring district courts to consider the nature and circumstances of the offense).
Sartin also had an opportunity to speak in his own defense. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(i)(4)(A)(ii); United States v. Hoffman, 707 F.3d 929, 937 (8th Cir. 2013). And to the extent he argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel, we will not consider this issue now. See United States v. Ramirez–Hernandez, 449 F.3d 824, 826–27 (8th Cir. 2006) (explaining that ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims “are usually best litigated in collateral proceedings”).
Finally, we have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82–83, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), and conclude that there are no other non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment and grant counsel permission to withdraw.
FOOTNOTES
1. The Honorable Timothy L. Brooks, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas.
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. 19-2131
Decided: July 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)