Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-14-02722/USCOURTS-ca7-14-02722-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ollie W. Howell
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals 

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted March 19, 2015

Decided March 20, 2015

Before

DANIEL A. MANION, Circuit Judge

ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge

DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge

No. 14‐2722

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff‐Appellee,

v.

OLLIE W. HOWELL,

Defendant‐Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Central District of Illinois.

No. 12‐cr‐10142

Joe Billy McDade,

Judge.

O R D E R

Ollie Howell robbed three banks in Illinois during September 2012, two in Peoria

(Heritage Bank and South Side Bank), and another in Aurora (Old Second National

Bank). The following month he was charged by indictment with bank robbery, see 18

U.S.C. § 2113(a), but only for the South Side Bank robbery. He was not taken into

custody in the Central District of Illinois, however, until after he was arrested in

California in March 2013. A year after that Howell was charged by information with the

other two robberies under a separate case number. Howell pleaded guilty to all three

counts. In his plea agreement—covering all three pleas—Howell waived the right to

appeal his convictions or sentence. The district court imposed 94 months’ imprisonment

on each count to be served concurrently.   

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

Case: 14-2722 Document: 19 Filed: 03/20/2015 Pages: 2
No. 14‐2722    Page 2

Howell has filed a notice of appeal applicable only to the case charged by

indictment (the South Side Bank robbery). His appointed lawyer asserts that the appeal

is frivolous and seeks to withdraw under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).

Counsel has submitted a brief that explains the nature of the case and addresses issues

that an appeal of this kind might be expected to involve. We invited Howell to comment

on counsel’s submission, see CIR. R. 51(b), but Howell has not done so. Because the

analysis in counsel’s brief appears to be thorough, we limit our discussion to the issues

identified in counsel’s brief. See United States v. Bey, 748 F.3d 774, 776 (7th Cir. 2014);

United States v. Wagner, 103 F.3d 551, 553 (7th Cir. 1996).

   

An appeal waiver stands or falls with the guilty plea, so Howell’s waiver

forecloses relief unless he can undermine his plea to the South Side Bank robbery.

See United States v. Gonzalez, 765 F.3d 732, 741 (7th Cir. 2014); United States v. Zitt, 714 F.3d

511, 515 (7th Cir. 2013); United States v. Sakellarion, 649 F.3d 634, 639 (7th Cir. 2011).

Counsel does not tell us whether Howell seeks to have that guilty plea set aside, but that

omission is harmless because the record reveals that the district court complied with

Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure when accepting the plea, making an

appeal frivolous. See United States v. Davenport, 719 F.3d 616, 617–18 (7th Cir. 2013);

United States v. Konczak, 683 F.3d 348, 349 (7th Cir. 2012). The court explained the

elements of the charge, the statutory maximum penalty (20 years, see 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a)),

the role of the sentencing guidelines and the judge’s discretion in applying them, the

trial rights Howell was waiving by entering his guilty plea, and the nature of the appeal

waiver to which he agreed. See FED. R. CRIM. P. 11(b)(1). The court also ensured that

Howell’s guilty plea was supported by an adequate factual basis and was made

voluntarily. See FED. R. CRIM. P. 11(b)(2), (3). Indeed, the court recognized Howell’s

struggles with mental illness and received confirmation from Howell that he understood

why he was in court and the nature of the proceeding, and that his medicine would not

interfere with those understandings.

Accordingly, we GRANT counsel’s motion and DISMISS the appeal.   

Case: 14-2722 Document: 19 Filed: 03/20/2015 Pages: 2