2002 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

6-12-2002

USA v. Pierre

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 01-1693

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2002

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2002 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"USA v. Pierre" (2002). 2002 Decisions. Paper 354.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2002/354
 NOT PRECEDENTIAL 

 THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

 FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT 

 ___________ 

 No. 01-1693 

 ___________ 

 THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

 v. 

 

 WILZA PIERRE, 

 Appellant 

 ___________ 

 ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY 

 (D.C. Civil No. 00-238-03) 

 District Judge: The Hon. Alfred J. Lechner 

 ___________ 

 Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) 

 June 7, 2002 

 __________ 

 BEFORE: SLOVITER, NYGAARD, and BARRY, Circuit Judges. 

 (Filed: June 11, 2002) 

 ___________ 

 OPINION OF THE COURT 

 ___________ 

NYGAARD, Circuit Judge. 

 This is an appeal by Appellant, Wilza Pierre from the judgment of the District 

Court in a criminal case following a bargained-for guilty plea. Pierre’s counsel has filed 

a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 738 (1967), representing that there are no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. The brief refers to those portions of the record that might 

arguably support an appeal and to the law relevant to guilty pleas. 

 As a general rule, the entry of a guilty plea constitutes a waiver of virtually all 

possible claims for appellate relief except (1) a claim that the court lacked jurisdiction to 

accept the plea; (2) a claim that the plea was invalid, according to applicable 

constitutional and statutory standards; and (3) a claim that the sentence is illegal. See 

United States v. Broce, 488 U.S. 563 (1989); Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258 (1973). 

Since a guilty plea constitutes an admission that a defendant committed the charged 

crimes, any claim that is inconsistent with an admission of guilt generally is waived by 

the plea. See Broce, 488 U.S. at 570-75. The guilty plea colloquy conducted by the 

District Court in this case was extensive and in conformity with the requisites of Rule 

11(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. 

 In United States v. Marvin, 211 F.3d 778 (3d Cir. 2000), we reconfirmed the duty 

of counsel filing Anders briefs to attempt to uncover the best arguments for his or her 

client, and to explain the faults in possible arguments. We have independently examined 

the scant record in this case, and find nothing that would require counsel to do more than 

he has done already. He fairly represents that the Rule 11 colloquy was sufficient. This 
case is essentially straightforward and there do not appear to be any other issues that 

might be subject to possible appeal. Therefore, the judgment of the District Court will be 

affirmed. 

_________________________ 

 

TO THE CLERK: 

 Please file the foregoing opinion. 

 _____/s/ Richard L. Nygaard_______ 

 Circuit Judge