Court Opinion

ID: 990457
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-03 23:21:48.451223+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:41:12.556795
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                    No. 96-4165

WARREN THOMAS, SR.,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg.
Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge.
(CR-95-370)

Submitted: September 10, 1996

Decided: September 23, 1996

Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

William Jeffry Weston, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant.
Harold Watson Gowdy, III, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Warren Thomas appeals his conviction and sentence for conspiracy
to possess with intent to distribute cocaine base. 1 Counsel filed a brief
pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), contending
that there are no meritorious issues to appeal, but raising the issue of
whether the district court fully complied with FED. R. CRIM. P. 11 in
taking Thomas's guilty plea. Counsel advised Thomas of his right to
file a supplemental brief, but he has not so filed. Finding no reversible
error after an entire review of the record, we affirm Thomas's convic-
tion and sentence, but remand to the district court with instructions to
correct its written judgment and commitment order to reflect its oral
expression at sentencing.

At the FED. R. CRIM. P. 11 colloquy, the district court thoroughly
questioned Thomas to ensure he was competent to enter a plea and
that he understood the nature and consequences of his plea. Specifi-
cally, the court inquired into Thomas's education, mental health, use
of drugs or medication, and whether Thomas understood all the rights
he was forfeiting by pleading guilty.

When Thomas expressed some reservation about his attorney's
efforts regarding the length of incarceration he would receive under
the federal sentencing guidelines, the court inquired into what else
Thomas thought his attorney should have done. Thomas could not
identify any specific failing of his counsel; he only reiterated his
belief that more could have been done to reduce his sentence. Upon
continued questioning by the court regarding his dissatisfaction,
Thomas stated that he was not dissatisfied with his attorney's prepara-
tion or advice, but only unhappy with the possible length of his incar-
ceration. Thomas's displeasure with the length of his incarceration
does not invalidate his guilty plea because he was fully aware of the
possible length of incarceration and still pleaded guilty.

Thomas acknowledged that he understood his rights, understood
_________________________________________________________________

1 21 U.S.C. § 846 (1988).

                     2
the consequences of his plea, and was freely and voluntarily pleading
guilty. The plea agreement must be upheld because Thomas made an
intelligent and informed decision when he voluntarily pled guilty.2

Finally, our complete review of the record disclosed a discrepancy
between the district court's oral sentence given in Thomas's presence
and its written order of judgment. When there is a conflict between
a written order of sentence and an oral sentence, the latter is control-
ling, and the proper remedy is for the district court to correct its writ-
ten judgment so that it conforms to its oral pronouncement.3 Because
the written order is incorrect, we must remand the case to the district
court so that it can correct its written order to reflect the oral sentence.

This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If the client 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. Coun-
sel's motion must state that a copy was served on the client.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten-
tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED AND REMANDED
_________________________________________________________________
2 North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 31 (1970); Boykin v. Alabama,
395 U.S. 238, 242 (1969).
3 United States v. Morse, 344 F.2d 27, 30 (4th Cir. 1965); Rakes v.
United States, 309 F.2d 686, 687-88 (4th Cir. 1962), cert. denied, 373
U.S. 939 (1963).

                     3