Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03814/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03814-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
James Lasley
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1 The Honorable Joseph F. Bataillon, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the

District of Nebraska.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-3814

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

James Lasley, * District of Nebraska.

*

Appellant. * [UNPUBLISHED]

___________

Submitted: December 7, 2005

Filed: December 15, 2005

___________

Before BYE, McMILLIAN, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM. 

James Lasley (Lasley) pled guilty to abusive sexual contact. See 18 U.S.C.

§§ 1153, 2244(a)(1). Pursuant to a Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C)

plea agreement, the district court1

 sentenced Lasley to 96 months’ imprisonment and

3 years’ supervised release. On appeal, Lasley’s counsel moved to withdraw and filed

a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing Lasley’s guilty plea

was involuntary and should not have been accepted because Lasley indicated he was

Appellate Case: 04-3814 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/15/2005 Entry ID: 1986241
-2-

not guilty in his petition to plead guilty, and Lasley’s sentence was imposed in

violation of United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). In his pro se

supplemental brief, Lasley asserts his previous counsel was ineffective and requests

new counsel.

We hold Lasley’s guilty plea is valid. Although in his guilty-plea petition

Lasley responded negatively to a question asking if he was guilty, he subsequently

affirmed to the district court, under oath, he wished to plead guilty and was in fact

guilty; he understood the charge, the rights he would waive by pleading guilty, and

the sentence he would receive; and no one had threatened him or coerced him into

pleading guilty. When asked, he did not dispute the factual basis for the plea. See

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

carry a strong presumption of verity.”); United States v. Parsons, 408 F.3d 519, 521-

22 (8th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (developments in law announced by Booker

subsequent to defendant’s guilty plea did not invalidate that plea).

Additionally, Lasley cannot challenge the sentence to which he stipulated in his

Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement. See United States v. Nguyen, 46 F.3d 781, 783 (8th

Cir. 1995) (“A defendant who explicitly and voluntarily exposes himself to a specific

sentence may not challenge that punishment on appeal.”). This is so even after

Booker. See United States v. Silva, 413 F.3d 1283, 1284 (10th Cir. 2005). Any

ineffective-assistance claim should be raised in 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceedings. See

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

Having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75,

80 (1988), we find no other nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment,

grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and deny Lasley’s request for new counsel.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-3814 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/15/2005 Entry ID: 1986241