US v. Ricardo Maddox, No. 09-4583 (4th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-4583 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. RICARDO W. MADDOX, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, District Judge. (1:08-cr-00090-IMK-JSK-1) Submitted: March 9, 2010 Decided: April 13, 2010 Before KING, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. William L. Pennington, Morgantown, West Virginia, for Appellant. John Castle Parr, Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Ricardo W. Maddox pleaded guilty to distribution of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) (2006), and possession of a firearm after having been convicted of a crime punishable by more than one year, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2006). The district court sentenced Maddox eighty-four months of imprisonment and Maddox now appeals. to His attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), raising several issues but stating that there are no meritorious issues for appeal. Maddox filed a pro se supplemental brief raising additional issues. * has filed a motion to dismiss waiver of his right to appeal. dismiss the appeal of the appeal The Government based on Maddox s For the reasons that follow, we Maddox s sentence and affirm his convictions. A defendant may, in a valid plea agreement, waive the right to appeal under 18 U.S.C. § 3742 (2006). Wiggins, 905 F.2d 51, 53 (4th Cir. 1990). United States v. This court reviews the validity of an appellate waiver de novo, and will enforce the waiver if it is valid and the issue appealed is within the * We have considered the claims raised in Maddox s pro se brief and conclude that the claims lack merit. 2 scope thereof. United States v. Blick, 408 F.3d 162, 168 (4th Cir. 2005). An appeal waiver is valid if the defendant knowingly and intelligently determine whether agreed a to waiver the is waiver. knowing Id. and at 169. To intelligent, this court examines the totality of the circumstances, including the experience and conduct of the accused, as well as the accused s educational background and familiarity with the terms of the plea agreement. United States v. General, 278 F.3d 389, 400 (4th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Generally, if the district court fully questions a defendant regarding the waiver of his right to appeal during the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 colloquy, the waiver is both valid and enforceable. United States v. Johnson, 410 F.3d 137, 151 (4th Cir. 2005); United States v. Wessells, 936 F.2d 165, 167-68 (4th Cir. 1991). We have reviewed the record and conclude that Maddox knowingly and intelligently entered into the plea agreement and understood the appeal waiver. Accordingly, Maddox waived the right to appeal his sentence and the manner in which it was determined and we thus grant in part the Government s motion to dismiss the appeal. The appellate waiver does not, however, considering Maddox s remaining claims. motion to dismiss in part. 3 preclude us from Therefore, we deny the In the Anders brief, counsel questions whether the Government made a promise not contained in the plea agreement regarding the sentence Maddox would receive. however, is unsupported by the record. whether the plea should be set This claim, Counsel also questions aside as unknowing and involuntary based on alleged clerical errors in the record, on Maddox s misunderstanding of the charges against him, and on the manner in which the factual basis was established at the Rule 11 hearing. Because Maddox did not move in the district court to withdraw his guilty plea, any error in the Rule 11 hearing is reviewed for plain error. See United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002). presumption that a Furthermore, there is a strong defendant s guilty plea is binding and voluntary if he has received an adequate Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing. 1995); United States v. Puckett, 61 F.3d 1092, 1099 (4th Cir. see Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 74 (1977) (finding that statements made during a plea hearing carry a strong presumption of verity ). Our review of the record discloses that the district court fully complied with Rule 11. We conclude, therefore, that the district court did not err in accepting Maddox s guilty plea as knowing and voluntary. Counsel next questions whether the Government retaliated against Maddox for filing a motion to dismiss and a 4 suppression motion by seeking a superseding indictment. This claim, however, is based on a flawed factual premise and is therefore without merit. the search However, warrant Maddox Counsel also questions the validity of obtained waived the to search right to Maddox s appeal residence. this issue by See Menna v. New York, 423 U.S. 61, 62-63 pleading guilty. (1975); Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258, 267 (1973) (when defendant pleads guilty voluntarily, he waives challenges to deprivations of constitutional rights occurring prior to guilty plea). Finally, counsel was counsel ineffective. questions whether Maddox s To a of prove claim trial ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must show (1) that counsel s performance was deficient, and performance prejudiced the defense. 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). (2) that the deficient Strickland v. Washington, With respect to the first prong, the defendant must show that counsel s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness. Id. at 688. In addition, [j]udicial scrutiny of counsel s performance must be highly deferential. Id. at 689. 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, he would not have 5 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 on F.3d the 233, record. 239 (4th United Cir. States 2006). We v. have thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude that it does not conclusively demonstrate ineffective assistance. that Maddox s trial counsel rendered We accordingly decline to consider this claim on direct appeal. We have examined the entire record in accordance with the requirements of Anders and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we grant the Government s motion to dismiss as to Maddox s sentence, deny the motion as to Maddox s convictions, and affirm Maddox s convictions. This court requires that counsel inform Maddox, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme review. If Maddox Court of requests the that United a States petition for be further filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move representation. in this court for leave to withdraw from Counsel s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Maddox. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 6 presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART 7
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.
