United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 14-3679

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Melvin Laducer

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the District of North Dakota - Bismarck

____________

 Submitted: June 8, 2015

 Filed: July 17, 2015

[Unpublished]

____________

Before LOKEN, BYE, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Melvin Laducer pleaded guilty to two counts of aggravated sexual abuse in

violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2241(a)(1) and 2244(a)(3). At the same hearing, the district
court sentenced him to 240 months of imprisonment. Laducer appeals, arguing only 1

that he received ineffective assistance of counsel, which caused his guilty plea to be

made unknowingly and involuntarily. Because ineffective-assistance-of-counsel

claims are more appropriately raised in a motion brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2255

after development of a full record, we decline to address Laducer’s claimin this direct

appeal.

Laducer asserts he was not able to fully understand the terms of the plea

agreement because he is unable to read or write. Two attorneys represented Laducer

at separate times over the course of his proceedings. Laducer asserts he was unable

to remember speaking with his initial attorney about the plea agreement, which he

shared with his second attorney on the date of his hearing. He also asserts his second

attorney met with him on a limited basis before the hearing to discuss his case and,

as a result, Laducer was not made adequately familiar with the plea agreement terms. 

Because of his reliance on his second attorney’s assistance to understand the terms

of the plea agreement and his counsel’s alleged failure to adequately convey those

terms, Laducer argues his guilty plea was not made knowingly or voluntarily.

Ineffective assistance claims are normally first raised in collateral proceedings

under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 because such claims require development of facts outside the

original record. United States v. Martin, 714 F.3d 1081, 1085 (8th Cir. 2013). We

will consider an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim on direct appeal only where

the record has been fully developed, where inaction would amount to a plain

miscarriage of justice, or where counsel's error is readily apparent. United States v.

Cook, 356 F.3d 913, 919-20 (8th Cir. 2004).

The Honorable Daniel L. Hovland, United StatesDistrictJudge for the District 1

of North Dakota.

-2-
We believe the record has not been sufficiently developed on Laducer’s ability

to understand the plea agreement and the number and quality of meetings each

counsel conducted in the course of representing Laducer. Additionally, we do not

believe a plain miscarriage of justice will occur if we do not act on the ineffectiveassistance-of-counsel claimon direct appeal, and Laducer’s second counsel’s alleged

ineffectiveness is not readily apparent from the original record.

We therefore decline to reach themerits ofLaducer’s ineffective-assistance-ofcounsel claim and affirm the district court.

______________________________

-3-