US v. Michael Johnson, No. 11-5103 (4th Cir. 2012)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-5103 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MICHAEL RAY JOHNSON, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Elizabeth City. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (2:10-cr-00047-H-1) Submitted: July 13, 2012 Decided: August 3, 2012 Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mary J. Darrow, LAW OFFICE OF MARY JUDE DARROW, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Jenifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Michael Ray Johnson appeals his convictions for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g), 924 (2006), and distribution of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 (2006), and his 180-month sentence. Johnson s counsel filed a brief pursuant Anders to v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there are no meritorious issues supplemental brief, for appeal. arguing that Johnson his filed procedural a pro due se process rights were violated because the magistrate judge did not sua sponte order an evaluation of his mental competency and that his counsel brief. was ineffective. The Government declined to file a We affirm. Because Johnson did not move to withdraw his guilty plea, error. the Rule 11 plea colloquy is reviewed for plain United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517 (4th Cir. 2002). The magistrate judge * substantially complied with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 and accepting review of voluntary. * did his the not violate plea. record, We Johnson s further that substantial conclude, Johnson s plea after was rights a in thorough knowing and Although Johnson suggests that the magistrate judge Johnson consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge. 2 should have sua sponte ordered a mental competency evaluation, we reject this contention. The test for mental competence is whether the defendant has sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding and whether he has a rational as well as factual Dusky v. United understanding of the proceedings against him. States, 362 U.S. 402, 402 (1960) (punctuation omitted). defendant must establish that the trial court [T]he ignored facts raising a bona fide doubt regarding the defendant s competency Walton v. Angelone, 321 F.3d 442, 459 (4th to stand trial. Cir. 2003). We conclude that the magistrate judge did not ignore facts raising a doubt as to Johnson s competency and, further, that Johnson had a reasonable degree of rational understanding of the proceedings. Johnson s applying States, the 552 sentence is reviewed abuse-of-discretion U.S. consideration 38, of both 51 correctly v. review and United requires substantive Id.; United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 575 (4th Cir. 2010). court Gall This procedural reasonableness of the sentence. district reasonableness, standard. (2007). the for After determining whether the calculated the advisory Guidelines range, this court must decide whether the court considered the 18 U.S.C. presented § 3553(a) by the (2006) parties, factors, and 3 analyzed sufficiently the arguments explained the Lynn, 592 F.3d at 575-76; United States v. selected sentence. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009). If the sentence is free of significant procedural error, this court will review the Lynn, 592 F.3d at substantive reasonableness of the sentence. 575; United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir. 2007). We conclude mandatory that the minimum district sentence court s was imposition both of the procedurally and substantively reasonable. Johnson suggests that the convictions used to designate him as an armed career criminal do not satisfy the requirements (2006). A criminal if for such defendant he is U.S.C. § 924(e). designation is properly subject to an under 18 U.S.C. designated enhanced USSG § 4B1.4(a) (2011). an § 924(e) armed sentence career under 18 The enhanced sentence applies to a defendant who violates 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) and has three previous convictions . . . for a violent felony or a serious drug offense, or both, committed on occasions different from one another. drug offense manufacturing 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1). includes or a possessing state law with The term serious offense intent to involving the manufacture or deliver any controlled substance, so long as the maximum term of imprisonment was at least ten years. 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(A)(ii). Johnson s three prior North Carolina drug convictions as qualify serious 4 drug offenses under § 924 because, at the time of the convictions, each offense punishable by a maximum of ten years imprisonment. was Johnson s argument is thus without merit. Johnson also argues that his counsel was ineffective. Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are not cognizable on direct appeal unless the record conclusively establishes that counsel provided ineffective assistance. United States v. Baldovinos, 434 F.3d 233, 239 (4th Cir. 2006); see also United States v. King, 119 F.3d 290, 295 (4th Cir. 1997) ( [I]t is well settled that a claim of ineffective assistance should be raised in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion in the district court rather than on direct ineffective The appeal, unless assistance. ) record on ineffectiveness. appeal the record (internal does not conclusively quotation marks conclusively shows omitted). establish We thus do not consider this argument. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record and found no meritorious issues for appeal. Johnson s convictions and sentence. We therefore affirm This court requires that counsel inform Johnson, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Johnson requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Johnson. 5 We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 6

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.