Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03718/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03718-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Christopher W. Middaugh
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Nanette K. Laughrey, United States District Judge for the

Western District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-3718

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

Christopher W. Middaugh, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: September 7, 2005

Filed: September 22, 2005

___________

Before ARNOLD, FAGG, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Christopher Middaugh appeals the sentence the district court1

 imposed

following revocation of his probation. Middaugh originally pleaded guilty to

possessing a firearm after having been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic

violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9), and was sentenced in January 2003

to 5 years probation. In November 2004 the district court revoked Middaugh’s

probation and sentenced him to 15 months imprisonment and 2 years supervised

release, after Middaugh stipulated that he had violated the conditions of his probation.

Appellate Case: 04-3718 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/22/2005 Entry ID: 1954802
-2-

On appeal, Middaugh argues that the district court lacked jurisdiction to accept

his guilty plea to the underlying firearm offense (as to which he now denies guilt),

that the court should have granted his revocation-hearing request for reappointment

of counsel, and that defense counsel at both his underlying criminal proceedings and

the revocation proceedings were ineffective.

These arguments fail. Middaugh is foreclosed from attacking his firearm

conviction in this appeal, see United States v. Simmons, 812 F.2d 561, 563 (9th Cir.

1987) (appeal from probation revocation is not proper avenue for collateral attack on

underlying conviction); he waived the reappointment issue by explicitly accepting

his present counsel at the revocation hearing, see United States v. Tulk, 171 F.3d 596,

600 (8th Cir. 1999) (issue waived below is not reviewed, even for plain error); and

his ineffective-assistance claims are not properly before us, see United States v.

Hughes, 330 F.3d 1068, 1069 (8th Cir. 2003) (claims of ineffective assistance of

counsel are generally deferred to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceedings unless miscarriage

of justice would obviously result, or outcome would be inconsistent with substantial

justice).

Accordingly, we affirm, and we also grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-3718 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/22/2005 Entry ID: 1954802