US v. Latoya Jones, No. 12-4714 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-4714 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. LATOYA EVETTE JONES, a/k/a Toy, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh, District Judge. (3:11-cr-00066-GMG-DJJ-1) Submitted: February 28, 2013 Decided: March 13, 2013 Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Nicholas J. Compton, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Kristen M. Leddy, Research and Writing Specialist, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellant. William J. Ihlenfeld, II, United States Attorney, Thomas O. Mucklow, Assistant United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Latoya 114-month Evette sentence Jones entered appeals pursuant her her to conviction guilty and plea to distribution of cocaine base within 1000 feet of a school. On appeal, counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether Jones sentence was unreasonably high. waiver provision The Government contends that the appellate in sentencing error. Jones plea agreement bars any claim of We affirm in part and dismiss in part. A defendant may, in a valid plea agreement, waive the right to appeal under 18 U.S.C. ยง 3742 (2006). Wiggins, 905 F.2d 51, 53 (4th Cir. 1990). United States v. An appellate waiver must be the result of a knowing and intelligent decision to forgo the right to appeal. United States v. Broughton-Jones, 71 F.3d 1143, 1146 (4th Cir. 1995) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). We review de novo whether a defendant has effectively waived her right to appeal. United States v. Marin, 961 F.2d 493, 496 (4th Cir. 1992). To intelligent, determine we examine whether the a waiver totality of is the knowing and 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 2 F.3d 389, citation 400 (4th omitted). Cir. 2002) (internal Generally, if a quotation court fully marks and questions a defendant regarding the waiver of her right to appeal during the Rule 11 colloquy, the waiver is both valid and enforceable. United States v. Johnson, 410 F.3d 137, 151 (4th Cir. 2005). However, we will refuse to enforce an otherwise valid waiver if to do so would result in a miscarriage of justice. Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). In the plea agreement, Jones agreed to waive all appellate rights relating to her sentence except for claims that her sentence exceeded the maximum statutory sentence. Our review of the record convinces us that Jones waiver was knowing and intelligent, and she does not contend otherwise. conclude that the sentencing issue raised by We further counsel in the Anders briefs falls within the scope of the appellate waiver provision, and we therefore dismiss the appeal of Jones sentence. In accordance with Anders, we have thoroughly examined the entire record for any other potentially meritorious issues outside the scope of Jones appeal waiver and have found none. Therefore we affirm Jones conviction. This court requires that counsel inform Jones, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Jones requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that 3 such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Jones. dispense with contentions are oral argument adequately because presented in the the facts We and legal materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART 4
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.
