Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-09-01680/USCOURTS-ca8-09-01680-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Robert Cyril Davisson
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable John A. Jarvey, United States District Judge for the Southern

District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-1680

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Southern District of Iowa.

Robert Cyril Davisson, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: January 28, 2010

Filed: February 4, 2010

___________

Before BYE, RILEY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Robert Cyril Davisson (Davisson) was charged with manufacturing and

distributing marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(a)(B); and with

possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18

U.S.C. § 924(c). His counsel moved to suppress all evidence obtained from a search

of Davisson’s home, and requested a hearing under Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154

(1978). After the district court1

 denied the motions, Davisson unconditionally pled

guilty to both charges. The court sentenced Davisson (who was then represented by

Appellate Case: 09-1680 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/04/2010 Entry ID: 3631136
-2-

different counsel) to 120 months in prison, the statutory minimum. On appeal,

counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S.

738 (1967), arguing that Davisson’s original counsel was ineffective in allowing

Davisson to plead guilty without preserving the suppression issue for appeal. 

Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are usually best litigated in 28

U.S.C. § 2255 proceedings, see United States v. Ramirez-Hernandez, 449 F.3d 824,

826-827 (8th Cir. 2006), and may be considered on direct appeal only in exceptional

circumstances, see United States v. Cook, 356 F.3d 913, 919-20 (8th Cir. 2004)

(declaring ineffective-assistance claims are properly addressed on direct appeal only

where the record has been fully developed, a plain miscarriage of justice would

otherwise result, or trial counsel’s ineffectiveness is readily apparent). We find no

exceptional circumstances in this case, and we decline to address Davisson’s

ineffective-assistance claim on direct appeal. 

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

80 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issue. We grant counsel’s motion to

withdraw, and we affirm the judgment. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 09-1680 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/04/2010 Entry ID: 3631136