Court Opinion

ID: 9930675
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-07 16:01:50.596695+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:24:36.841825
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                            For the Eighth Circuit
                        ___________________________

                                No. 23-2580
                        ___________________________

                             United States of America

                        lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

                                           v.

                               Stanford C. Griswold

                      lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
                                      ____________

                     Appeal from United States District Court
                for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City
                                 ____________

                           Submitted: January 24, 2024
                             Filed: February 7, 2024
                                  [Unpublished]
                                 ____________

Before GRUENDER, SHEPHERD, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
                        ____________

PER CURIAM.

      Stanford Griswold appeals the within-Guidelines-range sentence the district
     1
court imposed after he pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm

         1
      The Honorable David Gregory Kays, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Missouri.
pursuant to a written plea agreement containing an appeal waiver. His counsel has
moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967), challenging, inter alia, the voluntariness of Griswold’s plea and his sentence.
Griswold has filed a pro se brief challenging his plea, his sentence, and his counsels’
effectiveness; as well as a motion to proceed pro se.

       We conclude that Griswold’s involuntary-plea claim is not cognizable on direct
appeal because he did not move below to withdraw his guilty plea. See United States
v. Washington, 515 F.3d 861, 864 (8th Cir. 2008) (stating that a claim that a plea was
involuntary or unknowingly entered is not cognizable on direct appeal where the
defendant failed to move in the district court to withdraw the guilty plea). In
addition, we decline to consider Griswold’s ineffective-assistance claim on direct
appeal. See United States v. Ramirez-Hernandez, 449 F.3d 824, 826-27 (8th Cir.
2006) (establishing that ineffective-assistance claims are usually best raised in
collateral proceedings where the record can be properly developed).

      We further conclude that the appeal waiver is valid, enforceable, and applicable
to Griswold’s challenges to his sentence. See United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702,
704 (8th Cir. 2010) (reviewing de novo the validity and applicability of an appeal
waiver); United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 890-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc)
(enforcing appeal waiver if the appeal falls within the scope of the waiver, the
defendant knowingly and voluntarily entered into the plea agreement and the waiver,
and enforcing the waiver would not result in a miscarriage of justice).

      We have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.
75 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal outside the scope of the
appeal waiver. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, deny
Griswold’s motion to proceed pro se as moot, and dismiss this appeal.
                       ______________________________

                                         -2-