Court Opinion

ID: 9399656
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-06 00:00:29.96799+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:37.645265
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-50383        Document: 00516774873             Page: 1      Date Filed: 06/05/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________
                                                                               United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                        Fifth Circuit
                                      No. 22-50383
                                    Summary Calendar                                   FILED
                                    ____________                                     June 5, 2023
                                                                                 Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                          Clerk

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                            versus

   Princewill Tata,

                                              Defendant—Appellant.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Western District of Texas
                              USDC No. 7:21-CR-325-1
                     ______________________________

   Before Stewart, Duncan, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Princewill Tata pleaded guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement in which
   he waived the right to appeal his conviction and sentence, to one count of
   possession with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of actual
   methamphetamine. The district court sentenced him to 262 months of
   imprisonment and five years of supervised release. On appeal, Tata argues

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-50383      Document: 00516774873           Page: 2    Date Filed: 06/05/2023

                                     No. 22-50383

   that counsel was ineffective because he failed to inform Tata of the
   sentencing consequences he faced by pleading guilty to an offense involving
   actual methamphetamine and therefore that his guilty plea is invalid; Tata
   also argues that his sentence is procedurally and substantively unreasonable.
   In the plea agreement, Tata reserved the right to raise an ineffective
   assistance of counsel claim.
          “Sixth Amendment 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). This court will consider ineffective
   assistance claims on direct appeal “only in ‘rare cases in which the record
   allows a reviewing court to fairly evaluate the merits of the claim.’” Id.
   (citation omitted). Although Tata did not raise the specific claim he asserts
   on appeal in the district court, the record is sufficiently developed for the
   court to consider the claim on appeal, and consequently we review the claim
   for plain error. See United States v. Chavez-Valencia, 116 F.3d 127, 133 (5th
   Cir. 1997); see also United States v. Brown, 328 F.3d 787, 789 (5th Cir. 2003).
          Tata’s claim that counsel failed to explain the harsher sentence he
   faced under the Guidelines by admitting that the offense involved actual
   methamphetamine, rather than a mixture or substance containing
   methamphetamine, is unavailing. See U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c). Even if counsel
   failed to advise Tata of his true sentencing exposure, the record reflects that
   he understood that he faced a potential maximum sentence of life in prison
   when he entered his guilty plea. Thus, Tata understood the consequences of
   pleading guilty. See United States v. Rivera, 898 F.2d 442, 447 (5th Cir. 1990);
   see also United States v. Pearson, 910 F.2d 221, 223 (5th Cir. 1990).
   Additionally, regardless of any deficient performance on counsel’s part, Tata
   has not shown prejudice because he has not shown that there is a reasonable
   probability that, but for counsel’s alleged error, he would not have pleaded

                                              2
Case: 22-50383     Document: 00516774873          Page: 3   Date Filed: 06/05/2023

                                   No. 22-50383

   guilty but would have proceeded to trial. See Missouri v. Frye, 566 U.S. 134,
   148 (2012). Tata’s challenges to the reasonableness of his sentence are
   barred by the valid appeal waiver. See United States v. Bond, 414 F.3d 542,
   544, 546 (5th Cir. 2005).
          Tata’s conviction is AFFIRMED. To the extent that the appeal
   challenges his sentence, it is DISMISSED.

                                            3