United States v. Jerry Bledson ( 2021 )


Menu:
  •                         NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
    To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
    United States Court of Appeals
    For the Seventh Circuit
    Chicago, Illinois 60604
    Submitted November 1, 2021
    Decided November 23, 2021
    Before
    DIANE S. SYKES, Chief Judge
    FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge
    DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge
    No. 21-1199
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       Appeal from the United States District
    Plaintiff-Appellee,                        Court for the Northern District of Indiana,
    Hammond Division.
    v.                                        No. 2:20CR78-001
    JERRY BLEDSON,                                  Philip P. Simon,
    Defendant-Appellant.                       Judge.
    ORDER
    Jerry Bledson pleaded guilty to extortion, 
    18 U.S.C. § 875
    (b), after he and his
    girlfriend faked her kidnapping to obtain a ransom for her release. He was sentenced to
    84 months in prison with 2 years’ supervised release. Although his plea agreement
    contained a broad appeal waiver, Bledson filed a notice of appeal. His appointed
    counsel asserts that the appeal is frivolous and moves to withdraw. See Anders v.
    California, 
    386 U.S. 738
    , 744 (1967). Counsel’s brief explains the nature of the case and
    raises potential issues that an appeal like this would be expected to involve. Because his
    No. 21-1199                                                                        Page 2
    analysis appears thorough, and Bledson has not responded to counsel’s motion, see CIR.
    R. 51(b), we limit our review to the subjects that counsel discusses. See United States v.
    Bey, 
    748 F.3d 774
    , 776 (7th Cir. 2014).
    Counsel tells us that he conferred with Bledson about the conviction and that
    Bledson “did not tell [him] to forgo a challenge to it.” We accept that counsel
    interpreted this as a statement that his client wished to challenge the guilty plea.
    See United States v. Konczak, 
    683 F.3d 348
    , 349 (7th Cir. 2012). But we agree with counsel
    that any argument about the voluntariness of the plea would be frivolous. The
    transcript of the plea colloquy confirms that the district judge accepted Bledson’s guilty
    plea only after substantially complying with Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal
    Procedure. See 
    id.
     The judge determined that Bledson understood the charges against
    him, the trial and appeal rights that he was waiving, the maximum penalties for his
    offense, and the role of the sentencing guidelines. See FED. R. CRIM. P. 11(b)(1). The
    judge further ensured that Bledson’s plea was supported by an adequate factual basis
    and was made voluntarily. See FED. R. CRIM. P. 11(b)(2)–(3).
    Counsel considers whether Bledson could attack his sentence but rightly
    concludes that his appeal waiver would foreclose any challenge. An appeal waiver
    stands or falls with the underlying guilty plea. United States v. Nulf, 
    978 F.3d 504
    , 506
    (7th Cir. 2020). And, in his plea agreement, Bledson “expressly waive[d] [his] right to
    appeal or to contest [his] conviction and all components of [his] sentence or the manner
    in which [his] conviction or [his] sentence was determined or imposed, to any Court on
    any ground … .” Further, counsel correctly rejects any argument that an exception to
    the appeal waiver could apply. See 
    id.
     Bledson’s 84-month sentence was less than the
    20-year statutory maximum sentence that he faced, see § 875(b), and the judge did not
    consider any constitutionally impermissible factors at sentencing.
    Therefore, we GRANT counsel’s motion to withdraw and DISMISS the appeal.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 21-1199

Judges: Per Curiam

Filed Date: 11/23/2021

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/23/2021