US v. Theresa Lancaster, No. 09-4141 (4th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-4141 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. THERESA MCNEAL LANCASTER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (4:08-cr-00035-BR-1) Submitted: August 25, 2009 Decided: September 3, 2009 Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Henry C. Su, HOWREY LLP, East Palo Alto, California, for Appellant. Anne Margaret Hayes, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Theresa McNeal Lancaster pleaded guilty to armed bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), (d) (2006), bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), and aiding and abetting and bank 2113(a) (2006). robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, The district court sentenced Lancaster to 109 months of imprisonment and Lancaster now appeals. Her attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), raising two issues but meritorious issues for appeal. stating that there are no Lancaster was informed of her right to file a pro se supplemental brief but did not do so. We affirm. In Lancaster s the guilty plea brief, Anders was counsel knowing questions voluntary and whether because Lancaster did not understand the charges to which she pleaded guilty. Prior to accepting a guilty plea, a trial court, through colloquy with the defendant, must inform the defendant of, and charges determine to which that the she plea understands, is offered, the any nature mandatory of the minimum penalty, the maximum possible penalty she faces, and the various rights she is relinquishing by pleading guilty. P. 11(b). Fed. R. Crim. The court also must determine whether there is a factual basis for the plea. Id.; United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 120 (4th Cir. 1991). 2 The purpose of the Rule 11 colloquy is to ensure that the plea of guilt is entered into knowingly and voluntarily. 55, 58 (2002). See United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. There is a strong presumption that a defendant s guilty plea is binding and voluntary if the Rule 11 hearing was adequate. United States v. Puckett, 61 F.3d 1092, 1099 (4th Cir. 1995). Here, the district requirements of Rule 11. court fully complied with the Furthermore, Lancaster averred at the Rule 11 hearing that she fully understood the charges to which See Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. she was pleading guilty. 63, 74 (1977) (finding hearing carry a thoroughly that strong reviewed the statements presumption record and of made during conclude that plea We verity ). a have Lancaster s post-plea assertions that she misunderstood the charges to which she pleaded guilty fail to overcome the barrier of the sworn statements made at [her] Rule 11 hearing. United States v. Ubakanma, 215 F.3d 421, 424 (4th Cir. 2000). Counsel next argues that Lancaster s rendered ineffective assistance at sentencing. of ineffective assistance of counsel, a trial counsel To prove a claim defendant must show (1) that counsel s performance was deficient, and (2) that the deficient Strickland v. respect to performance Washington, the first 466 prong, prejudiced U.S. the 3 668, the 687 defendant defense. (1984). must show With that counsel s performance reasonableness. fell below Id. at 688. an objective standard In addition, [j]udicial scrutiny of counsel s performance must be highly deferential. 689. of Id. at Under the second prong of the test in the context of a conviction following a guilty plea, a defendant can show prejudice only by demonstrating a reasonable probability that, but for counsel s errors, [she] would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial. Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 59 (1985). This court may address a claim of ineffective assistance on direct appeal only if the lawyer s ineffectiveness conclusively Baldovinos, appears 434 F.3d from the record. United States 233, 239 (4th 2006). We Cir. v. have thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude that it does not meet the exacting standard of Baldovinos. Accordingly, we decline to reach on direct appeal Lancaster s claim that her counsel s performance at sentencing was constitutionally ineffective. We have examined the entire record in accordance with the requirements of Anders and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. court. writing, We therefore affirm the judgment of the district This court requires that counsel inform Lancaster, in of the right to petition United States for further review. 4 the Supreme Court of the If Lancaster requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Lancaster. 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 in the decisional process. AFFIRMED 5
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.
