Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02344/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02344-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kermit Billy Comstock
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Susan Webber Wright, United States District Judge for the

Eastern District of Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-2344

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Arkansas.

Kermit Billy Comstock, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: May 29, 2007

Filed: May 30, 2007

___________

Before WOLLMAN, MURPHY, and BYE, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Kermit Billy Comstock appeals the 18-month prison sentence imposed by the

district court1

 upon his guilty plea, entered pursuant to a written plea agreement, to

one count of possessing pseudoephedrine knowing it would be used to manufacture

methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(c)(2). His counsel has filed a brief

under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the district court erred

in failing to find that there was a sufficient factual basis upon which to accept the

guilty plea, as required by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(b)(3). Counsel also

Appellate Case: 06-2344 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/30/2007 Entry ID: 3313968
2

Moreover, Comstock did not object below and there is no indication that his

decision to plead guilty was affected by any possible error under Rule 11(b)(3). See

United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74, 83 (2004) (defendant seeking

reversal based on Rule 11 plain error must show reasonable probability that, but for

error, he would not have entered plea). 

-2-

moves to withdraw. Comstock has filed a pro se supplemental brief, which lists four

“facts” that we construe as arguments. One of the arguments appears to be a claim of

ineffective assistance of counsel, but this direct criminal appeal is not the proper

vehicle to raise such an argument; rather, an ineffective-assistance argument should

be raised (if at all) in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceeding, where the record can be properly

developed. See United States v. Hughes, 330 F.3d 1068, 1069 (8th Cir. 2003).

Comstock’s remaining arguments are refuted by his sworn plea-hearing testimony, cf.

Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 74 (1977) (“Solemn declarations in open court

carry a strong presumption of verity.”), or are irrelevant to the legitimacy of his

conviction and sentence. 

As to the Anders brief argument, we conclude that the district court complied

with Rule 11(b)(3): the government recited what its evidence would prove with

respect to the charge against Comstock, Comstock agreed that the government’s

recital of the evidence was substantially correct, and the evidence showed that

Comstock had assisted others in manufacturing methamphetamine by providing

pseudoephedrine and acting as a lookout, and that he had possessed pseudoephedrine

and other methamphetamine-manufacturing tools at the time of his arrest. See United

States v. Brown, 331 F.3d 591, 594 (8th Cir. 2003) (factual basis for plea of guilty is

established when court determines there is sufficient evidence at time of plea upon

which court may reasonably determine that defendant likely committed offense; this

determination is satisfied if transcript describes acts to which defendant pleaded

guilty); cf. United States v. McFadden, 238 F.3d 198, 200-01 (2d Cir. 2001) (factual

basis sufficiently established where court paraphrased indictment, defendant admitted

conduct described therein, and court confirmed defendant’s understanding of plea

agreement).2

Appellate Case: 06-2344 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/30/2007 Entry ID: 3313968
-3-

After reviewing the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75

(1988), and finding no non-frivolous issues, we affirm the judgment of the district

court and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw on condition that counsel inform

appellant about the procedures for filing petitions for rehearing and for certiorari.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-2344 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/30/2007 Entry ID: 3313968