Court Opinion

ID: 9881805
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-04 00:00:27.478375+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:07.592869
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-60608       Document: 00516918980             Page: 1      Date Filed: 10/03/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit                                 United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                  Fifth Circuit

                                    ____________                                FILED
                                                                           October 3, 2023
                                     No. 22-60608                           Lyle W. Cayce
                                   Summary Calendar                              Clerk
                                   ____________

   United States of America,

                                                                    Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                           versus

   Tyrese V. Watts,

                                             Defendant—Appellant.
                    ______________________________

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Southern District of Mississippi
                              USDC No. 2:21-CR-22-1
                    ______________________________

   Before Jones, Southwick, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
          Pursuant to a written plea agreement, Tyrese V. Watts pleaded guilty
   to one count of possession of a firearm by a felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
   § 922(g)(1), and he was sentenced to 120 months of imprisonment and three
   years of supervised release. On appeal, Watts contends that his trial counsel

          _____________________
          *
              Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion
   should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set
   forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 22-60608      Document: 00516918980           Page: 2    Date Filed: 10/03/2023

                                     No. 22-60608

   provided ineffective assistance and that his sentence was substantively
   unreasonable.
          In his plea agreement, Watts waived the right to appeal or challenge
   his conviction and sentence “on any ground whatsoever,” only reserving the
   right to bring a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. A defendant may
   waive the statutory right to appeal in a valid plea agreement. United States v.
   McKinney, 406 F.3d 744, 746 (5th Cir. 2005). Here, the record evinces that
   Watts knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal. See United States
   v. Bond, 414 F.3d 542, 544 (5th Cir. 2005). Moreover, affording the language
   of the appeal waiver its plain meaning, it undoubtedly applies to Watts’s
   challenge to the reasonableness of his sentence because it applies to all claims
   other than ineffective assistance of counsel. See id.
          Watts’s appeal waiver does not bar his ineffective assistance of
   counsel claims under its express terms. To prevail on a claim of ineffective
   assistance of counsel, a criminal defendant must show that his “counsel’s
   performance was deficient” and that “the deficient performance prejudiced
   the defense.” Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). Watts
   contends that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to
   challenge the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) based on New York State Rifle
   & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111, 2129-30 (2022). Further, he claims
   that his trial counsel failed to investigate the facts underlying the case and to
   introduce evidence at his sentencing hearing to challenge the base offense
   level assigned in his presentence report.
          Generally, claims of “ineffective assistance of counsel should not be
   litigated on direct appeal, unless they were previously presented to the trial
   court.” United States v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014) (internal
   quotation marks and citation omitted).           Here, the record does not
   substantially detail trial counsel’s conduct. See United States v. Bounds,

                                          2
Case: 22-60608      Document: 00516918980           Page: 3   Date Filed: 10/03/2023

                                     No. 22-60608

   943 F.2d 541, 544 (5th Cir. 1991).           There is no mention of the
   constitutionality of § 922(g), much less counsel’s knowledge of the recent
   decision in Bruen, any research conducted on the topic, or any legal
   conclusions reached by counsel. Further, counsel did not present any
   evidence regarding his efforts to investigate the facts or to introduce evidence
   at the sentencing hearing. Watts did not file any post-trial motions contesting
   his counsel’s actions. See United States v. Gibson, 55 F.3d 173, 179 (5th Cir.
   1995). Finally, Watts’s claims are not based on purely legal issues but rather
   on counsel’s actions or failures to act. See United States v. Diehl, 775 F.3d
   714, 719 (5th Cir. 2015). Therefore, we decline to consider Watts’s claims of
   ineffective assistance of counsel at this time. See Isgar, 739 F.3d at 841.
          Given the foregoing, the appeal is DISMISSED, but without
   prejudice to Watts’s right to raise his claims of ineffective assistance of
   counsel on collateral review. See, e.g., United States v. Kelly, 915 F.3d 344,
   352 (5th Cir. 2019).

                                          3