US v. Terry Blankenship, No. 09-4558 (4th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-4558 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. TERRY LEON BLANKENSHIP, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Bluefield. Thomas E. Johnston, District Judge. (1:08-cr-00073-1) Submitted: March 29, 2010 Decided: April 15, 2010 Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Troy N. Giatras, THE GIATRAS LAW FIRM, PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Charles T. Miller, United States Attorney, Karen B. Schommer, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Terry Leon Blankenship pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to one count of possession of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. ยง 2252A(a)(5)(B) & (b)(2) (2006). conclusion of Blankenship s plea hearing, the At the district court found that Blankenship was competent to plead guilty, that his plea was freely understood voluntarily consequences the and of made, guilty his that plea, factual basis existed for Blankenship s plea. P. 11. to 100 Blankenship and that a See Fed. R. Crim. Subsequently, the district court sentenced Blankenship months imprisonment, advisory guidelines range. which fell within Blankenship s Blankenship timely noted his appeal. On appeal, Blankenship contends that his guilty plea was not supported by a factual basis and that the district court erred in accepting his plea because he denied being guilty of the offense. Blankenship failed to challenge the validity of his guilty plea in the district court. Accordingly, his claims on appeal are reviewed for plain error. United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55, 61-62 (2002); United States v. General, 278 F.3d 389, 394 (4th Cir. 2002). must demonstrate that: plain; and (3) the To establish plain error, Blankenship (1) there was error; (2) the error was error affected his substantial United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732 (1993). rights. If the three elements of this standard are met, this court may exercise its 2 discretion to affect[s] the judicial notice the fairness, error only integrity, proceedings. Id. if or the error public (internal seriously reputation quotations of omitted). Blankenship fails to demonstrate any error by the district court in accepting his guilty plea. First, stipulated Blankenship s factual established the Blankenship s basis was signed elements stipulation plea of by the was supported Blankenship, offense sufficient, establish a factual basis for his plea. Rule 11 hearing, the of in a which conviction. itself, to See United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 120 (4th Cir. 1991). Blankenship s by Moreover, during Government restated the stipulation, and in response to the district court s questions, Blankenship admitted that he had read the stipulation, that he had signed the stipulation, and that he agreed with the facts in the stipulation. Accordingly, Blankenship s plea was supported by a sufficient basis in fact. Also, Blankenship s the district plea because, court did despite not err in accepting Blankenship s isolated denial at the conclusion of his Rule 11 hearing, Blankenship knowingly and voluntarily pled guilty to Count Three. At the conclusion of his Rule 11 hearing, Blankenship did state, [n]o, I didn t actually do the crimes. However, after consulting with counsel, Blankenship reversed himself stating, I take that 3 back, Your Honor. Yes, I did. When the district court asked him why he initially denied responsibility, Blankenship stated, I m not really sure, Your Honor, but I did put the images on the computer, yes. The Blankenship s remainder knowing of and the Rule voluntary 11 transcript admission. supports Blankenship testified during his Rule 11 hearing that he had reviewed his plea agreement with his attorney, that he had sufficient time to discuss his case with his attorney, and that his attorney had answered all of his questions. The district court explained to Blankenship the elements of the offense to which he was pleading guilty, and the maximum penalties he faced by pleading guilty. The district court then reviewed with Blankenship his various trial rights that he was waiving by pleading guilty, Blankenship acknowledged that he understood his rights. and The district court then asked Blankenship, [a]s to Count Three, sir, how do Blankenship you plead: responded guilty guilty. or not guilty? To Blankenship s which, plea was, admittedly, voluntary and not the result of threats, coercion or promises not contained in his plea agreement. isolated denial simply fails to establish district court in accepting his guilty plea. 4 any Blankenship s error by the Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We dispense with oral argument as the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid 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.
