United States v. Aaron Storm, No. 16-3305 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Smith, Bowman and Benton, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law. Anders case. Defendant voluntarily waived his right to an appeal as part of his plea agreement, and the appeal is dismissed. [ March 09, 2017
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 16-3305 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Aaron Lawrence Storm lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Des Moines ____________ Submitted: March 6, 2017 Filed: March 10, 2017 [Unpublished] ____________ Before SMITH, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Aaron Storm appeals after he pleaded guilty to child-pornography and attempted-kidnapping charges, under a written plea agreement containing an appeal waiver, and the District Court1 imposed the agreed-upon sentence. At his sentencing hearing, Storm moved pro se to withdraw his guilty plea, and the court denied his motion. On appeal, Storm’s counsel has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the denial of Storm’s motion to withdraw his plea. Storm has not filed a pro se brief. We conclude that the appeal waiver is enforceable and applicable to the issue raised in this appeal, based in part on Storm’s own statements at his change-of-plea hearing. See United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (reviewing de novo the validity and applicability of an appeal waiver); United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889–92 (8th Cir.) (en banc) (discussing enforcement of appeal waivers), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 997 (2003); see also Nguyen v. United States, 114 F.3d 699, 703 (8th Cir. 1997) (noting that a defendant’s representations made during a plea hearing are presumed to be true). We have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal outside the scope of the waiver. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion, and we dismiss this appeal. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable John A. Jarvey, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa. -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.
