Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 6 views

    United States v. Poston, 4th Cir. (2011)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case in which Melanie Dennis Poston appealed her conviction for conspiracy to possess prescription drugs with intent to distribute. Poston's attorney filed an Anders brief asserting there were no meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning whether the district court failed to properly advise Poston under Rule 11, rendering her guilty plea involuntary. The Court of Appeals affirmed Poston's conviction, finding that the district court sufficiently advised Poston of her rights and that any technical deficiencies did not affect her substantial rights. The court conducted an independent review and found no meritorious issues for appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    United States v. Poston, 4th Cir. (2011)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    6 views3 pages
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case in which Melanie Dennis Poston appealed her conviction for conspiracy to possess prescription drugs with intent to distribute. Poston's attorney filed an Anders brief asserting there were no meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning whether the district court failed to properly advise Poston under Rule 11, rendering her guilty plea involuntary. The Court of Appeals affirmed Poston's conviction, finding that the district court sufficiently advised Poston of her rights and that any technical deficiencies did not affect her substantial rights. The court conducted an independent review and found no meritorious issues for appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2011-02-16 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 10-4163

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case in which Melanie Dennis Poston appealed her conviction for conspiracy to possess prescription drugs with intent to distribute. Poston's attorney filed an Anders brief asserting there were no meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning whether the district court failed to properly advise Poston under Rule 11, rendering her guilty plea involuntary. The Court of Appeals affirmed Poston's conviction, finding that the district court sufficiently advised Poston of her rights and that any technical deficiencies did not affect her substantial rights. The court conducted an independent review and found no meritorious issues for appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    6 views3 pages

    United States v. Poston, 4th Cir. (2011)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case in which Melanie Dennis Poston appealed her conviction for conspiracy to possess prescription drugs with intent to distribute. Poston's attorney filed an Anders brief asserting there were no meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning whether the district court failed to properly advise Poston under Rule 11, rendering her guilty plea involuntary. The Court of Appeals affirmed Poston's conviction, finding that the district court sufficiently advised Poston of her rights and that any technical deficiencies did not affect her substantial rights. The court conducted an independent review and found no meritorious issues for appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 10-4163

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    MELANIE DENNIS POSTON,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Florence.
    Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
    (4:09-cr-00514-TLW-1)

    Submitted:

    February 10, 2011

    Decided:

    February 16, 2011

    Before WILKINSON and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    David B. Betts, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant.


    William E. Day, II, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence,
    South Carolina, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Melanie Dennis Poston appeals from her conviction for
    conspiracy

    to

    possess

    with

    intent

    to

    distribute

    prescription

    substances and her resulting 125-month sentence entered pursuant


    to her guilty plea.

    On appeal, Postons attorney has filed an

    Anders * brief, concluding that there are no meritorious issues


    for appeal but questioning whether the district court failed to
    comply

    with

    involuntary.

    Fed.

    R.

    Crim.

    P.

    11

    rendering

    Postons

    plea

    Although informed of her right to do so, Poston

    has not filed a supplemental brief.

    After a thorough review of

    the record, we affirm.


    Poston

    contends

    that

    the

    district

    court

    failed

    to

    inform her of her right to persist in her previous plea of not


    guilty and her right to have an attorney appointed to represent
    her

    if

    However,

    she
    our

    could

    not

    review

    of

    afford

    one,

    the

    record

    in

    violation

    discloses

    of

    that

    Rule
    the

    11.

    court

    informed Poston that she could either proceed to a jury trial or


    plead guilty and that, should she choose to go to trial, she
    would have the right to assistance of counsel.

    In addition,

    Poston specifically changed her plea to guilty at her Rule 11


    hearing, expressly stated that she wished to plead guilty, and
    was represented by appointed counsel earlier in her proceedings.
    *

    Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).

    Thus,

    even

    technically

    if

    the

    district

    insufficient,

    courts

    Poston

    affected her substantial rights.


    278

    F.3d

    389,

    393

    unpreserved error).

    (4th

    Cir.

    colloquy

    cannot

    show

    was

    that

    somehow

    any

    error

    See United States v. General,


    2002)

    (standard

    of

    review

    for

    Accordingly, this claim of error is without

    merit.
    Pursuant to Anders, we have conducted an independent
    review of the record in this case, and we find no meritorious
    issues for appeal.
    sentence.

    As such, we affirm Postons conviction and

    This court requires that counsel inform Poston in

    writing of her right to petition the Supreme Court of the United


    States for further review.

    If Poston requests that a petition

    be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be


    frivolous,

    then

    counsel

    may

    withdraw from representation.

    motion

    this

    court

    for

    leave

    to

    Counsels motion must state that

    a copy thereof was served on Poston.

    We dispense with oral

    argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately


    presented in the materials before the court and argument would
    not aid the decisional process.
    AFFIRMED

    You might also like