United States v. Joshua Woolridge, No. 14-1666 (8th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. Sentence was not substantively unreasonable; claims of ineffective assistance would not be addressed on direct appeal. [ July 24, 2014
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 14-1666 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Joshua Todd Woolridge lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City ____________ Submitted: July 22, 2014 Filed: July 25, 2014 [Unpublished] ____________ Before MURPHY, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Joshua Woolridge appeals after he pleaded guilty to failing to register as a sex offender and the District Court1 sentenced him to thirty months in prison, a term 1 The Honorable Beth Phillips, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. within the calculated Guidelines range. His counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing, in essence, that Woolridge s prison term is substantively unreasonable. In a pro se supplemental brief, Woolridge claims that he has received ineffective assistance of counsel. Upon careful review, we conclude that Woolridge s prison term is not substantively unreasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007) (describing appellate review of sentencing decisions and noting that if a sentence is within the Guidelines range, a court of appeals may apply a presumption of reasonableness). Further, we decline to consider Woolridge s ineffective-assistance claims and related assertions on direct appeal. See United States v. Jennings, 662 F.3d 988, 991 92 (8th Cir. 2011) (deferring possible ineffective-assistance claims to a 28 U.S.C. ยง 2255 proceeding). Finally, having reviewed the record in accordance with Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the District Court, and we grant counsel s motion to withdraw subject to counsel informing Woolridge about procedures for seeking rehearing or filing a petition for certiorari. ______________________________ -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.
