Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-02965/USCOURTS-ca8-03-02965-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Phillip Laverne Johnson
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Lyle E. Strom, United States District Judge for the District of

Nebraska.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-2965

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the District

* of Nebraska.

Phillip Laverne Johnson, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: April 29, 2004

Filed: May 5, 2004

___________

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

___________

PER CURIAM.

Phillip Laverne Johnson pleaded guilty to conspiring to manufacture 50 grams

or more of methamphetamine, and to manufacture, distribute, and possess with intent

to distribute 500 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing

methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. The district court1

 sentenced him

to 151 months imprisonment and 5 years supervised release. On appeal,

Mr. Johnson’s counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v.

Appellate Case: 03-2965 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/05/2004 Entry ID: 1763973 
-2-

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing the court should have granted Mr. Johnson

a competency hearing prior to sentencing. 

After careful review, we conclude counsel’s argument fails. Absent some

indication to the contrary, the district court was permitted to presume Mr. Johnson

was competent, see Branscomb v. Norris, 47 F.3d 258, 261 (8th Cir.), cert. denied,

515 U.S. 1109 (1995), and the doubts about Mr. Johnson’s competence expressed by

defense counsel at one point prior to sentencing were alone insufficient to require a

competency hearing, see Reynolds v. Norris, 86 F.3d 796, 800 (8th Cir. 1996). We

find nothing else in the record that would suggest Mr. Johnson was incompetent

either during his plea or sentencing hearings. To the contrary, Mr. Johnson answered

the district court’s questions coherently during both hearings, there is no indication

the court witnessed any unusual behavior by him, and Mr. Johnson testified that his

medications did not affect his ability to understand the purpose of the plea hearing.

Finally, we have reviewed the record independently pursuant to Penson v.

Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we

affirm. We also grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-2965 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/05/2004 Entry ID: 1763973