United States v. Dobie Brown, No. 09-3802 (8th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal case - criminal law and sentencing. Anders case. Any issue as to defendant's competency to plead guilty could not be raised for the first time on direct appeal; claim of ineffective assistance is not properly raised in a direct appeal; defendant was given allocution; sentence was not unreasonable.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 09-3802 ___________ United States of America, Appellee, v. Dobie Lee Brown, Appellant. * * * * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the * Eastern District of Arkansas. * * [UNPUBLISHED] * ___________ Submitted: March 10, 2010 Filed: March 15, 2010 ___________ Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. After Dobie Brown pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting the possession with intent to distribute of 50 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 2, the district court1 sentenced him to 151 months in prison and 5 years of supervised release. On appeal, Brown s counsel has moved to withdraw, filing a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Brown has filed a pro se supplemental brief. Having carefully reviewed the record and the submissions on appeal, we affirm. 1 The Honorable J. Leon Holmes, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. We address seriatim the arguments raised in the Anders and pro se briefs: (1) any issue as to Brown s competency to plead guilty is not properly raised for the first time in this direct criminal appeal, see United States v. Murphy, 899 F.2d 714, 716 (8th Cir. 1990); (2) Brown was represented by counsel throughout these proceedings, and any issue regarding ineffective assistance is not properly before us, see United States v. Ramirez-Hernandez, 449 F.3d 824, 826-27 (8th Cir. 2006); (3) Brown exercised his right of allocution; and (4) his sentence, which falls within the advisory Guidelines range, is not unreasonable, see United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc). Having reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues for review. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed, and we grant counsel s motion to withdraw. ______________________________ -2-
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.
