Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-09-03250/USCOURTS-ca8-09-03250-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Tina Christine Esquivel
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr., United States District Judge for the

Eastern District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-3250

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Eastern

* District of Missouri.

Tina Christine Esquivel, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: April 30, 2010

Filed: May 20, 2010 

___________

Before LOKEN, BYE, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Tina Esquivel directly appeals after she was sentenced in the district court1

upon her guilty plea to a drug charge. Counsel has filed a brief under Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he seeks to withdraw. In a pro se brief,

Esquivel argues that her trial counsel was ineffective, and that the prosecutor engaged

in misconduct.

Appellate Case: 09-3250 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/20/2010 Entry ID: 3666600
2

We note that this dismissal is without prejudice to Esquivel’s right to assert her

pro se ineffective-assistance and prosecutorial-misconduct claims in post-conviction

proceedings. We express no opinion regarding the merits of such claims or their

viability under the plea agreement.

-2-

Esquivel entered her guilty plea pursuant to a written plea agreement containing

a waiver of all appeal rights except with respect to jurisdictional and sentencing

issues. Because we perceive no nonfrivolous jurisdictional or sentencing issues in this

case after reviewing the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80

(1988), and because we conclude that the appeal waiver is enforceable, we will

enforce the appeal waiver and dismiss this appeal. See United States v. McIntosh, 492

F.3d 956, 960 (8th Cir. 2007) (appeal waiver was knowing and voluntary when it was

included in plea agreement, court questioned defendant about his understanding of

waiver, and defendant did not argue on appeal that waiver was unknowing or

involuntary); United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-90 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc)

(appeal waiver is enforceable where appeal falls within scope of waiver, both plea

agreement and waiver were entered into knowingly and voluntarily, and no

miscarriage of justice would result from enforcing waiver); United States v.

Michelsen, 141 F.3d 867, 871-72 (8th Cir. 1998) (appeal waiver is enforceable so long

as it resulted from knowing and voluntary decision; examining personal characteristics

of defendant and circumstances surrounding plea agreement when assessing

knowledge and voluntariness of waiver); see also United States v. Estrada-Bahena,

201 F.3d 1070, 1071 (8th Cir. 2000) (per curiam) (in Anders case, enforcing appeal

waiver by dismissing appeal).

Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we dismiss this

appeal.2

______________________________

Appellate Case: 09-3250 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/20/2010 Entry ID: 3666600