US v. Devon Smith, No. 13-4673 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-4673 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. DEVON ERIC SMITH, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (5:12-cr-00114-F-2) Submitted: April 24, 2014 Decided: April 28, 2014 Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Douglas E. Kingsbery, THARRINGTON SMITH, LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Devon Eric Smith appeals his conviction and twelve-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea to simple assault on a government official, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 111 (2012). On appeal, counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), concluding that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether Smith was deprived of his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel. Smith was notified of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but has not done so. declined to file a response brief. The Government has Following a careful review of the record, we affirm. Counsel rendered questions ineffective whether Smith s assistance. trial Claims of counsel ineffective assistance of counsel are generally not cognizable on direct appeal . . . unless it conclusively appears from the record that defense United counsel States did v. not Benton, (internal quotation development of 523 marks adequate provide effective representation. 424, (4th F.3d omitted). the 435 Rather, record, Cir. to ineffective 2008) allow for assistance claims generally should be raised in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. (4th See United States v. Baptiste, 596 F.3d 214, 216 n.1 Cir. plainly 2010). establish Because that we conclude Smith s 2 the trial record counsel does not rendered ineffective assistance, we decline to consider his claim at this juncture, without prejudice to his ability to raise such a claim in a § 2255 motion. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Smith s conviction and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform Smith, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Smith requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in representation. this court for leave to withdraw from Counsel s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Smith. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions this court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. AFFIRMED 3
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.
