USA v. Jude Thaddeus Danahy, No. 15-10521 (11th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 15-10521 Date Filed: 02/29/2016 Page: 1 of 2 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 15-10521 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 8:14-cr-00333-VMC-EAJ-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JUDE THADDEUS DANAHY, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida ________________________ (February 29, 2016) Before MARTIN, JORDAN and JULIE CARNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Jude Thaddeus Danahy pleaded guilty to a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b). The district court then sentenced Danahy and appointed Thomas Burns to represent him on direct appeal. Burns has now filed a motion in this Court asking to Case: 15-10521 Date Filed: 02/29/2016 Page: 2 of 2 withdraw from the appeal. A few days after Burns filed this motion, the Acting Clerk of this Court wrote Danahy a letter informing him of his right to respond to the motion. Danahy then filed a pro se motion asking this Court to dismiss his appeal without prejudice. The motion was returned unfiled because Danahy is still represented by counsel. Danahay then sent Burns a letter saying that his trial lawyer was ineffective. Burns filed the letter in this Court. Burns also filed a brief along with his motion to withdraw. This brief is based on Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967), and states that “counsel cannot argue in good faith any nonfrivolous challenge to Danahy’s plea or sentence.” Our independent review of the record confirms Burns’s assessment. Danahy’s conviction and sentence are thus AFFIRMED, and Burns’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED. If Danahy plans to argue that his guilty plea was invalid because he received ineffective assistance of counsel, then his plea agreement will not bar him from raising this claim in a properly filed 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. See United States v. Puentes-Hurtado, 794 F.3d 1278, 1284–85 (11th Cir. 2015). 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
