Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02109/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02109-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Donald Ray Evans
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Rodney W. Sippel, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-2109

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Missouri.

Donald Ray Evans, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: September 6, 2006

Filed: September 26, 2006

___________

Before MURPHY, BYE, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Donald Ray Evans pleaded guilty to two counts of bank robbery, in violation

of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). At sentencing the district court1

 calculated a Guidelines

imprisonment range of 151-188 months, and sentenced Evans to concurrent terms of

180 months in prison and 3 years of supervised release, and ordered him to pay

$2,624.22 in restitution. On appeal, counsel moves to withdraw and has filed a brief

under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing there is nothing to appeal.

In his pro se brief and mandamus petition, Evans argues a multitude of issues

Appellate Case: 05-2109 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/26/2006 Entry ID: 2093343
-2-

regarding the completeness of his appellate record, his plea, and his sentencing.

Evans also claims ineffective assistance of counsel. 

Having carefully considered each of Evans’s claims, we conclude they lack

merit and we affirm the judgment of the district court. As to Evans’s claim of

ineffective assistance of counsel, we find no reason to depart from this court’s usual

rule of requiring such claims to be raised in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. See United

States v. Ramirez-Hernandez, 449 F.3d 824, 827 (8th Cir. 2006) (this court “will

consider ineffective-assistance claims on direct appeal only where the record has been

fully developed, where not to act would amount to a plain miscarriage of justice, or

where counsel’s error is readily apparent”). Finally, we find that Evans’s request to

include extra-judicial letters in the district court record has been previously granted

and accordingly we deny his mandamus petition. See In re MidAmerican Energy Co.,

286 F.3d 483, 486 (8th Cir. 2002) (per curiam) (mandamus is extraordinary remedy

reserved for extraordinary circumstances, such as those amounting to judicial

usurpation of power).

Having reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we

find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment,

deny the mandamus petition, and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-2109 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/26/2006 Entry ID: 2093343