Court Opinion

ID: 9945990
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-28 21:00:51.740339+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:24:13.120487
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-4372      Doc: 39         Filed: 02/27/2024     Pg: 1 of 4

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-4372

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        LYCURTIS THOMPSON,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:22-cr-00036-D-RJ-1)

        Submitted: February 22, 2024                                  Decided: February 27, 2024

        Before NIEMEYER and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Peter M. Wood, LAW OFFICE OF PETER WOOD, Raleigh, North Carolina,
        for Appellant. David A. Bragdon, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE
        UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-4372       Doc: 39           Filed: 02/27/2024   Pg: 2 of 4

        PER CURIAM:

               Lycurtis Thompson pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to possession

        of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2). The

        district court sentenced him to 71 months’ imprisonment. On appeal, counsel has filed a

        brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no

        meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether (1) Thompson’s appeal waiver is

        enforceable; (2) Thompson’s guilty plea was valid; (3) trial counsel rendered ineffective

        assistance; (4) the district court properly applied the Sentencing Guidelines; and (5) the

        prosecutor engaged in misconduct. In a pro se supplemental brief, Thompson details the

        circumstances of his trial counsel’s alleged ineffectiveness. The Government moves to

        dismiss Thompson’s appeal pursuant to the appellate waiver in his plea agreement. We

        affirm in part and dismiss in part.

               “We review an appellate waiver de novo to determine whether the waiver is

        enforceable” and “will enforce the waiver if it is valid and if the issue[s] being appealed

        fall[] within the scope of the waiver.” United States v. Boutcher, 998 F.3d 603, 608 (4th

        Cir. 2021) (internal quotation marks omitted). An appellate waiver is valid if the defendant

        enters it “knowingly and intelligently, a determination that we make by considering the

        totality of the circumstances.” Id. “Generally though, if a district court questions a

        defendant regarding the waiver of appellate rights during the [Fed. R. Crim. P.] 11 colloquy

        and the record indicates that the defendant understood the full significance of the waiver,

        the waiver is valid.” United States v. McCoy, 895 F.3d 358, 362 (4th Cir. 2018) (internal

        quotation marks omitted).

                                                       2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-4372        Doc: 39         Filed: 02/27/2024     Pg: 3 of 4

                 Our review of the record, including the plea agreement and the transcript of the Rule

        11 hearing, confirms that Thompson knowingly and intelligently waived his right to appeal

        his conviction and sentence, excepting claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and

        prosecutorial misconduct. We therefore conclude that the waiver is valid and enforceable

        and that the sentencing issues raises by Anders counsel fall squarely within the waiver’s

        scope.

                 The waiver provision, however, does not preclude our review pursuant to Anders of

        the validity of the guilty plea. See id. at 364. Because Thompson did not seek to withdraw

        his guilty plea, we review the adequacy of the Rule 11 hearing for plain error. United

        States v. Williams, 811 F.3d 621, 622 (4th Cir. 2016); see United States v. Harris, 890 F.3d

        480, 491 (4th Cir. 2018) (discussing plain error standard). Our review of the record leads

        us to conclude that Thompson entered his guilty plea knowingly and voluntarily, that a

        factual basis supported the plea and all elements of his offense, and that his guilty plea is

        valid. See United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116, 119-20 (4th Cir. 1991).

                 Thompson’s ineffective assistance and prosecutorial misconduct claims also fall

        outside the scope of the appeal waiver. There is no evidence in the record to support

        Thompson’s conclusory claim of prosecutorial misconduct. To demonstrate ineffective

        assistance of trial counsel, Thompson “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, “[u]nless an attorney’s

        ineffectiveness conclusively appears on the face of the record, [ineffective assistance]

        claims are not addressed on direct appeal.” United States v. Faulls, 821 F.3d 502, 507-08

                                                       3
USCA4 Appeal: 23-4372       Doc: 39         Filed: 02/27/2024      Pg: 4 of 4

        (4th Cir. 2016). Instead, such claims should be raised, if at all, 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 ineffectiveness of

        counsel does not conclusively appear on the face of the record before us.

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

        found no potentially meritorious grounds for appeal outside the scope of Thompson’s valid

        appellate waiver. We therefore grant the Government’s motion to dismiss in part and

        dismiss the appeal as to all issues covered by the waiver. We deny the motion in part and

        otherwise affirm.

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

        the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Thompson 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 Thompson. 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 IN PART,
                                                                                DISMISSED IN PART

                                                      4