United States v. Jamie Charles, No. 12-3363 (8th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal case - Criminal law. Anders case. Defendant knowingly pleaded guilty to the offense of possession of a machine gun and cannot challenge the factual basis for the plea.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 12-3363 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Jamie Charles lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - El Dorado ____________ Submitted: July 5, 2013 Filed: July 8, 2013 [Unpublished] ____________ Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Jamie Charles directly appeals after he pled guilty to possession of a machine gun in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime, and the district court1--upon granting 1 The Honorable Susan O. Hickey, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. the government s motion for a downward departure--sentenced him below the statutory minimum. Charles s counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), alluding to the fact that Charles at sentencing expressed confusion about the offense to which he had pled guilty, and suggesting that Charles is dissatisfied with his sentence, but asserting no grounds for reversal. Charles has filed a supplemental brief, challenging the factual basis for his plea. Upon careful review, we note that Charles specifically confirmed at the plea hearing that he understood he was pleading guilty to possession of a machine gun in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime, and thus we conclude that he knowingly pled guilty to that offense. Cf. United States v. Todd, 521 F.3d 891, 895 (8th Cir. 2008) (defendant properly advised of nature of charge to which he pled guilty where prosecutor recited elements of offense at plea hearing). We further conclude that there is no merit to his challenges concerning the factual basis for his plea. See O Leary v. United States, 856 F.2d 1142, 1143 (8th Cir. 1988) (per curiam) (in pleading guilty, defendant admits all factual allegations made in indictment). Finally, having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we find no non-frivolous issues. Accordingly, we grant counsel s motion to withdraw, and we affirm. ______________________________ -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.
