United States v. Patterson , 475 F. App'x 708 ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •                                                              FILED
    United States Court of Appeals
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS       Tenth Circuit
    FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                       August 20, 2012
    Elisabeth A. Shumaker
    Clerk of Court
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    v.                                                        No. 12-5107
    (D.C. No. 4:11-CR-00149-CVE-2)
    CHANTZ GERMAINE PATTERSON,                                (N.D. Okla.)
    a/k/a Chantz Terrance Patterson, a/k/a
    Chank,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
    Before BRISCOE, Chief Judge, EBEL and MATHESON, Circuit Judges.
    Chantz Germaine Patterson pleaded guilty to two counts of conspiracy to
    commit bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, two counts of bank robbery
    with a dangerous weapon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) & (d), and one count of
    using, carrying, and brandishing a firearm during and in relation to a crime of
    *
    This panel has determined that oral argument would not materially assist the
    determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The
    case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment
    is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata,
    and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent
    with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
    violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii). The district court sentenced
    him to a total of 192 months in prison to be followed by three years’ supervised
    release. In addition, the district court entered a restitution order in the amount of
    $4,336. By plea agreement, Mr. Patterson waived the right to appeal his conviction
    or sentence unless his sentence exceeded the statutory maximum. The statutory
    maximum sentence for the charges of conspiracy to commit bank robbery was five
    years, for the charges of bank robbery with a dangerous weapon was twenty-five
    years, and for the firearm charge was life imprisonment. Notwithstanding the appeal
    waiver, Mr. Patterson filed a notice of appeal.
    The government has moved to enforce the appeal waiver under United States
    v. Hahn, 
    359 F.3d 1315
    (10th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (per curiam). In response,
    Mr. Patterson’s counsel filed a motion to withdraw and an Anders brief. See Anders
    v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
    , 744 (1967) (authorizing counsel to request permission to
    withdraw where counsel conscientiously examines case and determines that appeal
    would be wholly frivolous). Counsel states that there are no nonfrivolous issues
    presented in the record.
    Nonetheless, under Anders, we have conducted an independent review of the
    plea agreement, change of plea hearing transcript, sentencing hearing transcript, and
    motion to enforce. See 
    id. After doing
    so, we conclude that the requirements for
    enforcing the plea waiver at this time have been satisfied: (1) this “appeal falls
    within the scope of the waiver of appellate rights;” (2) Mr. Patterson “knowingly and
    -2-
    voluntarily waived his appellate rights;” and (3) “enforcing the waiver would [not]
    result in a miscarriage of justice.” 
    Hahn, 359 F.3d at 1325
    .
    This court afforded Mr. Patterson an opportunity to file a pro se response to
    the motion to enforce, see 
    Anders, 386 U.S. at 744
    , which he did. Mr. Patterson
    contends that his attorney provided ineffective assistance of counsel in negotiating
    the guilty plea and in advising him concerning the plea. That claim should be raised
    in a collateral proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, rather than on direct appeal, since
    the district court has not had an opportunity to develop the factual record on the
    issue. See, e.g., United States v. Ibarra-Coronel, 
    517 F.3d 1218
    , 1222 (10th Cir.
    2008) (recognizing claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel usually must be
    raised in collateral proceeding); 
    Hahn, 359 F.3d at 1327
    & n. 13 (recognizing
    ineffective assistance of counsel as exception to enforcing appellate waiver, but
    reiterating longstanding rule that such claims are properly considered on collateral
    review). Mr. Patterson may properly bring an ineffective assistance of counsel claim
    concerning the negotiation of his appeal waiver in a collateral proceeding.
    We GRANT the government’s motion to enforce the plea agreement, GRANT
    counsel’s motion to withdraw, and DISMISS the appeal.
    Entered for the Court
    Per Curiam
    -3-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 12-5107

Citation Numbers: 475 F. App'x 708

Judges: Briscoe, Ebel, Matheson, Per Curiam

Filed Date: 8/20/2012

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/5/2023