Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 15 views

    United States v. Delestin, 4th Cir. (2003)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case in which Ricardo Delestin appealed his conviction and 144-month prison sentence for drug crimes. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction and sentence. It found that Delestin's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and involuntary guilty plea were without merit. It also determined that his sentence did not violate Apprendi v. New Jersey because it did not exceed the statutory maximum.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    United States v. Delestin, 4th Cir. (2003)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    15 views3 pages
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case in which Ricardo Delestin appealed his conviction and 144-month prison sentence for drug crimes. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction and sentence. It found that Delestin's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and involuntary guilty plea were without merit. It also determined that his sentence did not violate Apprendi v. New Jersey because it did not exceed the statutory maximum.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2003-01-08 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 02-4358

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case in which Ricardo Delestin appealed his conviction and 144-month prison sentence for drug crimes. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction and sentence. It found that Delestin's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and involuntary guilty plea were without merit. It also determined that his sentence did not violate Apprendi v. New Jersey because it did not exceed the statutory maximum.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    15 views3 pages

    United States v. Delestin, 4th Cir. (2003)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case in which Ricardo Delestin appealed his conviction and 144-month prison sentence for drug crimes. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction and sentence. It found that Delestin's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and involuntary guilty plea were without merit. It also determined that his sentence did not violate Apprendi v. New Jersey because it did not exceed the statutory maximum.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    v.
    RICARDO DELESTIN, a/k/a Rick,
    Defendant-Appellant.

    No. 02-4358

    Appeal from the United States District Court


    for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg.
    W. Craig Broadwater, District Judge.
    (CR-99-23-3)
    Submitted: November 27, 2002
    Decided: January 8, 2003
    Before TRAXLER and KING, Circuit Judges, and
    HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    COUNSEL
    Morgan B. Hayes, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Thomas
    E. Johnston, United States Attorney, Thomas O. Mucklow, Assistant
    United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See


    Local Rule 36(c).

    UNITED STATES v. DELESTIN

    OPINION
    PER CURIAM:
    Ricardo Delestin appeals the district courts order sentencing him
    to 144 months imprisonment and three years of supervised release for
    violations of 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1) (2000) and 18 U.S.C. 2 (2000).
    Delestins attorney has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Although counsel states that there are
    no meritorious issues for appeal, he does raise several issues in the
    brief. Delestin has filed a supplemental brief. In accordance with
    Anders, we have considered the briefs and examined the entire record
    for meritorious issues. We find no error and affirm.
    On appeal, Delestins counsel raises three issues: (i) ineffective
    assistance of counsel; (ii) inadequacy of Delestins guilty plea; and
    (iii) violations of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000). Likewise, in his supplemental brief, Delestin argues that his counsel at
    sentencing rendered ineffective assistance and that his guilty plea was
    involuntary.
    At his sentencing hearing, Delestin testified, under oath, that he
    was satisfied with his counsel. Thus, his claim of ineffective assistance is foreclosed on direct appeal. See United States v. DeFusco,
    949 F.2d 114, 120 (4th Cir. 1991) (holding that ineffective assistance
    of counsel claims are not considered on direct appeal unless counsels
    ineffectiveness conclusively appears on the face of the record).
    Delestins claim that his guilty plea was involuntary also must fail.
    Violations of Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 are evaluated for harmless error.
    United States v. Damon, 191 F.3d 561, 564 n.2 (4th Cir. 1999) (citing
    United States v. Goins, 51 F.3d 400, 402 (4th Cir. 1995)). Furthermore, a defendant is bound by representations made during a plea colloquy relating to the voluntariness of the plea absent clear and
    convincing evidence to the contrary. Burket v. Angelone, 208 F.3d
    172, 191 (4th Cir. 2000). Because the transcript of the guilty plea
    hearing reveals that the district court complied with Rule 11, because
    Delestin testified, under oath, that his plea was not the result of any
    coercion, threats, or harassment, and because he has produced no evi-

    UNITED STATES v. DELESTIN

    dence to rebut this testimony, Delestins argument that his guilty plea
    was involuntary is without merit.
    Likewise, Delestins arguments based on Apprendi must fail.
    Apprendi is applicable only where a fact, other than that of a prior
    conviction, increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed
    statutory maximum. 530 U.S. at 490. Although Delestin was sentenced to 144 months imprisonment, the maximum statutory penalty
    pursuant to 841 is twenty years imprisonment. United States v. Kinter, 235 F.3d 192, 199-200 (4th Cir. 2000). Thus, because Delestins
    sentence did not exceed the prescribed statutory maximum, his reliance on Apprendi is misplaced and these claims must fail.
    In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in
    this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Delestins conviction and sentence. This court requires
    that 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, then counsel may move in this court for leave
    to withdraw from representation. Counsels motion must state that a
    copy thereof 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 decisional process.
    AFFIRMED

    You might also like