Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 10 views

    United States v. Parris, 4th Cir. (2006)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes an unpublished appellate court decision regarding a defendant, Robert McDonald Parris, who was convicted of conspiracy to possess and distribute cocaine. Parris' attorney argued there were no meritorious issues for appeal, but suggested ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing. The appellate court affirmed the conviction and sentence, stating that claims of ineffective assistance are not cognizable on direct appeal and must be brought in a subsequent §2255 motion, unless the record conclusively establishes ineffective assistance. The court found the record did not conclusively demonstrate deficiencies in counsel's performance in this case.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    United States v. Parris, 4th Cir. (2006)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    10 views3 pages
    This document summarizes an unpublished appellate court decision regarding a defendant, Robert McDonald Parris, who was convicted of conspiracy to possess and distribute cocaine. Parris' attorney argued there were no meritorious issues for appeal, but suggested ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing. The appellate court affirmed the conviction and sentence, stating that claims of ineffective assistance are not cognizable on direct appeal and must be brought in a subsequent §2255 motion, unless the record conclusively establishes ineffective assistance. The court found the record did not conclusively demonstrate deficiencies in counsel's performance in this case.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2006-03-01 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 04-4737

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document summarizes an unpublished appellate court decision regarding a defendant, Robert McDonald Parris, who was convicted of conspiracy to possess and distribute cocaine. Parris' attorney argued there were no meritorious issues for appeal, but suggested ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing. The appellate court affirmed the conviction and sentence, stating that claims of ineffective assistance are not cognizable on direct appeal and must be brought in a subsequent §2255 motion, unless the record conclusively establishes ineffective assistance. The court found the record did not conclusively demonstrate deficiencies in counsel's performance in this case.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Parris, 4th Cir. (2006)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes an unpublished appellate court decision regarding a defendant, Robert McDonald Parris, who was convicted of conspiracy to possess and distribute cocaine. Parris' attorney argued there were no meritorious issues for appeal, but suggested ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing. The appellate court affirmed the conviction and sentence, stating that claims of ineffective assistance are not cognizable on direct appeal and must be brought in a subsequent §2255 motion, unless the record conclusively establishes ineffective assistance. The court found the record did not conclusively demonstrate deficiencies in counsel's performance in this case.

    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. 04-4737

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    ROBERT MCDONALD PARRIS,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of North Carolina, at Asheville.
    Lacy H. Thornburg,
    District Judge. (CR-04-15)

    Submitted:

    January 25, 2006

    Decided:

    March 1, 2006

    Before TRAXLER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Randolph Marshall Lee, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant.


    Donald David Gast, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville,
    North Carolina, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Robert

    McDonald

    Parris

    appeals

    his

    conviction

    and

    ninety-four month sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to one


    count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute more than
    500 grams of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 841, 846 (2000).
    Counsel has filed an Anders* brief in which he states that there
    are no meritorious issues for appeal, but suggests that defense
    counsel provided ineffective assistance at sentencing when he
    argued for a sentence at the bottom of the Guideline range rather
    than a more lenient sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C.A. 3553(a)
    (West 2000 & Supp. 2005).

    Parris was notified of his right to file

    a pro se supplemental brief, but has not filed a brief.


    Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are generally
    not cognizable on direct appeal.

    See United States v. King, 119

    F.3d 290, 295 (4th Cir. 1997).

    Rather, to allow for adequate

    development of the record, a defendant must bring his claim in a


    motion under 28 U.S.C. 2255 (2000).
    Hoyle, 33 F.3d 415, 418 (4th Cir. 1994).

    See id.; United States v.


    An exception exists when

    the record conclusively establishes ineffective assistance. United


    States v. Richardson, 195 F.3d 192, 198 (4th Cir. 1999).

    Our

    review of the record leads us to conclude that any deficiencies in


    counsels performance are not conclusively demonstrated.

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


    - 2 -

    In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire


    record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
    appeal.

    We therefore affirm Parriss conviction and sentence.

    This court requires that counsel inform Parris, in writing, of the


    right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
    further review.

    If Parris requests that a petition be filed, but

    counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then


    counsel

    may

    move

    representation.

    in

    this

    court

    for

    leave

    to

    withdraw

    from

    Counsels motion must state that a copy thereof

    was served on Parris.


    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

    - 3 -

    You might also like