Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-07-01059/USCOURTS-ca8-07-01059-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jason Donald Hamilton
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1 The Honorable Richard E. Dorr, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-1059

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

Jason Donald Hamilton, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: December 28, 2007

Filed: January 9, 2008

___________

Before MURPHY, SMITH, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Jason Hamilton, who pleaded guilty to charges of being a felon in possession

of an explosive device and possession of an unregistered destructive device,

challenges the 120-month prison sentence imposed by the district court.1

 His counsel

has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and has moved to

withdraw. Counsel asserts that the district court miscalculated Hamilton’s base

offense level by treating his conviction for stealing a car as a crime of violence.

Hamilton has filed a supplemental brief, additionally asserting that his guilty plea was

Appellate Case: 07-1059 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/09/2008 Entry ID: 3389597
-2-

involuntary, that his counsel was ineffective, and that the district court improperly

included in his criminal history a prior vehicle-tampering conviction, which had

resulted in a suspended imposition of sentence. We affirm.

Because Hamilton did not properly preserve any of the issues asserted on

appeal, our review is for plain error. See United States v. Sun Bear, 307 F.3d 747, 750

(8th Cir. 2002). We conclude that the district court did not err, much less plainly err,

in any of its relevant sentencing determinations. See U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1 (base offense

level of 26 required if defendant has 2 felony convictions for crimes of violence);

U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2 (“conviction for which the imposition . . . of sentence was totally

suspended shall be counted”); cf. Sun Bear, 307 F.3d at 751-53 (theft or attempted

theft of vehicle is crime of violence under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2).

We decline to consider the effectiveness of Hamilton’s counsel, because

ineffective-assistance claims ordinarily must be raised for the first time in a 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255 proceeding. See United States v. Murphy, 899 F.2d 714, 716 (8th Cir. 1990)

(claims of ineffective assistance ordinarily must be raised for first time in collateral

proceedings because claim usually cannot be advanced without development of facts).

We also decline to review Hamilton’s challenge to the voluntariness of his guilty plea,

in light of his failure to seek a withdrawal of his plea in the district court. See id.

We further conclude that Hamilton’s sentence--at the bottom of the advisory

Guidelines range--is not unreasonable. See Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456,

2462 (2007) (approving appellate presumption of reasonableness for withinGuidelines-range sentences); United States v. Harris, 493 F.3d 928, 932 (8th Cir.

2007) (applying appellate presumption). Having conducted an independent review

under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues

for direct appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment and grant

Appellate Case: 07-1059 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/09/2008 Entry ID: 3389597
-3-

counsel leave to withdraw on the condition that counsel inform appellant about the

procedures for filing petitions for rehearing and for certiorari.

____________________________

Appellate Case: 07-1059 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/09/2008 Entry ID: 3389597