United States v. Morrison ( 2001 )


Menu:
  •                IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
    
    
    
                                No. 00-51218
                              Summary Calendar
    
    
    
         UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    
                                              Plaintiff-Appellee,
    
              versus
    
    
         ROBERT LEE MORRISON,
    
                                              Defendant-Appellant.
    
    
    
    
              Appeals from the United States District Court
                    for the Western District of Texas
                        USDC No. A-00-CR-62-All-JN
    
                            September 27, 2001
    
    Before GARWOOD, JONES and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
    
    PER CURIAM:*
    
         Robert Lee Morrison appeals his conviction, following entry of
    
    a guilty plea, for possession with intent to distribute more than
    
    50 grams of crack cocaine.    Morrison contends that his plea was
    
    involuntary because he was not admonished at rearraignment of his
    
    rights under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 
    530 U.S. 466
     (2000), to have
    
    the Government prove and the jury determine the drug quantity
    
    
         *
          Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5 the Court has determined that this
    opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under
    the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
    beyond a reasonable doubt.    Morrison contends that the superseding
    
    information was fatally defective because it reported that he
    
    committed the drug offense four months after he entered a plea to
    
    the   charge.   Morrison     contends   that   his   attorney    provided
    
    ineffective assistance because counsel did not object to the lack
    
    of an Apprendi admonishment and did not challenge the alleged
    
    defective charging instrument.
    
          We have reviewed the record and the briefs submitted by the
    
    parties and hold that all requirements of Rule 11 were met in this
    
    case.   See Rule 11(c); United States v. Cuevas-Andrade, 
    232 F.3d 440
    , 444 (5th Cir. 2000).    Moreover, any error would be harmless.
    
    United States v. Reyna, 
    130 F.3d 104
    , 112 (5th Cir. 1997); United
    
    States v. Coronado, 
    554 F.2d 166
    , 173 (5th Cir. 1977).          We further
    
    hold that Morrison has not shown reversible error in conjunction
    
    with his claim that the obviously typographical date error in the
    
    superseding information rendered the charging instrument void.
    
    Berger v. United States, 
    55 S. Ct. 629
    , 630 (1935), overruled on
    
    other grounds, Stirone v. United States, 
    80 S. Ct. 270
     (1960);
    
    Russell v. United States, 
    429 F.2d 237
    , 238 (5th Cir. 1970).
    
    Finally, Morrison has not shown that counsel’s performance was
    
    objectively unreasonable.    See Strickland v. Washington, 
    104 S. Ct. 2052
    , 2065-68 (1984); United States v. Wilkes, 
    20 F.3d 651
    , 653
    
    (5th Cir. 1994) (counsel not deficient for failing to raise legally
    
    meritless claim).   Accordingly, the judgment of the district court
    
    
                                       2
    is
    
         AFFIRMED.
    
    
    
    
             3