Court Opinion

ID: 9831323
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:00:39.683183+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:02.639456
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4158      Doc: 27         Filed: 08/31/2023     Pg: 1 of 3

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-4158

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        AUTUMN HAGLER,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
        Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., Senior District Judge. (3:21-cr-00077-RJC-DCK-1)

        Submitted: August 29, 2023                                        Decided: August 31, 2023

        Before KING, AGEE, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Sandra Payne Hagood, LAW OFFICE OF SANDRA PAYNE HAGOOD,
        Chapel Hill, North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States
        Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina,
        for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4158      Doc: 27         Filed: 08/31/2023      Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Autumn Hagler pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to possession of a

        firearm by a felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a). The district court

        sentenced Hagler to 78 months’ imprisonment and three years of supervised release. On

        appeal, Hagler’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

        (1967), asserting that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether

        trial counsel provided ineffective assistance at sentencing by failing to elaborate on

        Hagler’s mental health conditions as a basis for a downward variance. Hagler was notified

        of her right to file a pro se supplemental brief but has not done so, and the Government has

        declined to file a response brief. Finding no error, we affirm.

               To demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel, Hagler “must show that counsel’s

        performance was [constitutionally] deficient” and “that the deficient performance

        prejudiced the defense.” Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). However,

        unless an attorney’s ineffectiveness “conclusively appears on the face of the record,” we

        do not address ineffective assistance claims on direct appeal. United States v. Faulls, 821

        F.3d 502, 507-08 (4th Cir. 2016). Instead, such claims should be raised in a motion brought

        pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in order to permit sufficient development of the record.

        United States v. Baptiste, 596 F.3d 214, 216 n.1 (4th Cir. 2010). We conclude that

        ineffective assistance of counsel does not conclusively appear on the face of the record

        before us. Therefore, Hagler’s claim should be raised, if at all, in a § 2255 motion. Faulls,

        821 F.3d at 508.

                                                     2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4158         Doc: 27      Filed: 08/31/2023     Pg: 3 of 3

               In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have

        found no meritorious grounds for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment.

        This court requires that counsel inform Hagler, in writing, of the right to petition the

        Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Hagler requests that a petition

        be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may

        move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state

        that a copy thereof was served on Hagler.

               We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

        adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the

        decisional process.

                                                                                      AFFIRMED

                                                    3