Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 51 views

    United States v. Johnson, 4th Cir. (2007)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding defendant Terry Donnell Johnson's appeal of his conviction and sentence. The court affirmed the district court's ruling, making the following key points: (1) Johnson's guilty plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered according to the plea hearing transcript; (2) Johnson was properly classified as a career offender and his sentence was reasonable and did not violate double jeopardy; and (3) any ineffective assistance of counsel claim would be premature and was not apparent from the record. The appeals court examined the entire record and found no meritorious issues for appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    United States v. Johnson, 4th Cir. (2007)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    51 views4 pages
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding defendant Terry Donnell Johnson's appeal of his conviction and sentence. The court affirmed the district court's ruling, making the following key points: (1) Johnson's guilty plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered according to the plea hearing transcript; (2) Johnson was properly classified as a career offender and his sentence was reasonable and did not violate double jeopardy; and (3) any ineffective assistance of counsel claim would be premature and was not apparent from the record. The appeals court examined the entire record and found no meritorious issues for appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2007-09-13 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 07-4111

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding defendant Terry Donnell Johnson's appeal of his conviction and sentence. The court affirmed the district court's ruling, making the following key points: (1) Johnson's guilty plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered according to the plea hearing transcript; (2) Johnson was properly classified as a career offender and his sentence was reasonable and did not violate double jeopardy; and (3) any ineffective assistance of counsel claim would be premature and was not apparent from the record. The appeals court examined the entire record and found no meritorious issues for appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    51 views4 pages

    United States v. Johnson, 4th Cir. (2007)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding defendant Terry Donnell Johnson's appeal of his conviction and sentence. The court affirmed the district court's ruling, making the following key points: (1) Johnson's guilty plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered according to the plea hearing transcript; (2) Johnson was properly classified as a career offender and his sentence was reasonable and did not violate double jeopardy; and (3) any ineffective assistance of counsel claim would be premature and was not apparent from the record. The appeals court examined the entire record and found no meritorious issues for appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 4

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 07-4111

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    TERRY DONNELL JOHNSON,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr.,
    Chief District Judge. (3:05-cr-00003)

    Submitted:

    August 31, 2007

    Decided:

    September 13, 2007

    Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Thomas A. Will, Jr., LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS A. WILL, JR., Gastonia,


    North Carolina, for Appellant.
    Gretchen C.F. Shappert, United
    States Attorney, Karen S. Marston, Thomas Tullidge Cullen, OFFICE
    OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Terry Donnell Johnson pled guilty to possession with
    intent to distribute cocaine base and possession of a firearm by a
    convicted felon.

    He was sentenced to 262 months on the drug charge

    and a concurrent 120-month sentence for the weapons offense. He now


    appeals. His attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
    California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), raising two issues but stating
    that both appear to lack merit.
    supplemental

    brief

    raising

    Johnson has filed a pro se

    additional

    issues.

    Finding

    no

    reversible error, we affirm.


    Johnson contends that his guilty plea was not voluntarily
    and knowingly entered.

    Our review of the transcript of Johnsons

    arraignment discloses that the proceeding was properly conducted


    under Fed. R. Crim. P. 11.

    This raise[s] a strong presumption

    that the plea is final and binding.

    See United States v. Lambey,

    974 F.2d 1389, 1394 (4th Cir. 1992).

    Further, a defendants

    declarations during the plea colloquy carry a strong presumption


    of verity.

    Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 74 (1977).

    Here,

    Johnson represented at his Rule 11 hearing that he was entering his


    plea freely and voluntarily with a full understanding of the
    charges against him, the penalties he faced, and the rights he was
    waiving by pleading guilty.

    He also informed the court that he was

    not under the influence of drugs or alcohol and that no one had
    threatened, intimidated, or forced him to plead guilty.

    - 2 -

    Finally,

    Johnson expressed his satisfaction with his attorney.

    Under these

    circumstances, we conclude that the plea was both knowing and


    voluntary.
    Although Johnson contests his treatment as a career
    offender, we note that he had the requisite two previous felony
    convictions for drug offenses, neither of which has been overturned
    by the North Carolina state courts.
    properly

    treated

    as

    career

    We conclude that Johnson was

    offender

    Guidelines Manual 4B1.1(a) (2005).

    under

    U.S.

    Sentencing

    We also find that Johnsons

    sentence, imposed within the properly calculated advisory sentence


    range and applicable statutory limits, is reasonable.

    See United

    States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 341 (4th Cir. 2006); United
    States v. Moreland, 437 F.3d 424, 433 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 126
    S. Ct. 2054 (2006); see also United States v. Rita, 127 S. Ct. 2456
    (2007). Finally, his sentence does not violate the Double Jeopardy
    Clause.

    See United States v. Hondo, 366 F.3d 363, 365 (4th Cir.

    2004).
    Johnson contends that he was denied effective assistance
    of counsel.

    To allow for adequate development of the record, a

    defendant must usually bring a claim of ineffective assistance in


    a 28 U.S.C. 2255 (2000) motion unless it conclusively appears
    from

    the

    record

    representation.

    that

    counsel

    did

    not

    provide

    effective

    United States v. Richardson, 195 F.3d 192, 198

    - 3 -

    (4th Cir. 1999).

    Here, no such error is apparent from our review

    of the record.
    We have examined the entire record in this case in
    accordance

    with

    the

    requirements

    of

    Anders,

    and

    we

    find

    no

    meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm. This court


    requires counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to
    petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review.
    If the client requests that a petition be filed, but counsel
    believes that such a petition would be frivolous, counsel may move
    in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsels
    motion must state that a copy of the motion was served on the
    client. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
    contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
    court and argument would not aid the decisonal process.

    AFFIRMED

    - 4 -

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy