Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02849/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02849-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Corey Owens
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Henry E. Autrey, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-2849

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the 

* Eastern District of Missouri.

Corey Owens, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: March 7, 2005

Filed: July 13, 2005 

___________

Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, FAGG, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Corey Owens appeals the sentence the district court1

 imposed after he pleaded

guilty to distributing cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and

(b)(1)(C). His counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the district court should not have

applied a career-offender enhancement because to do so it had to determine, in

violation of Blakely v. Washington, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), that Owens’s prior

convictions were crimes of violence or controlled-substance offenses; counsel

Appellate Case: 04-2849 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/13/2005 Entry ID: 1927449
2

United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005).

-2-

concedes, however, that Owens explicitly admitted to career-offender status in his

plea agreement. Owens has filed a pro se supplemental brief and a “Summary of

Arguments,” arguing that his plea was not knowing and voluntary in light of Blakely.

Counsel’s argument fails. See United States v. Lucca, 377 F.3d 927, 934 (8th

Cir. 2004) (holding that Blakely was not implicated where defendant was sentenced

based solely upon facts admitted as part of guilty plea); cf. United States v. Nolan,

397 F.3d 665, 667 & n.2 (8th Cir. 2005) (where district court applied Armed Career

Criminal Act after finding that defendant had 2 predicate-offense convictions, no

Blakely/Booker2

 issue existed because Supreme Court has consistently held that facts

of prior convictions are for court to determine, not jury). The pro se argument also

fails. See United States v. Parsons, 408 F.3d 519, 521-22 (8th Cir. 2005) (per curiam)

(development in law announced by Booker subsequent to defendant’s guilty plea did

not invalidate plea).

Having reviewed the record independently pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488

U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm, and we

grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-2849 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/13/2005 Entry ID: 1927449