United States v. Selvin Garcia-Garcia, No. 13-1829 (8th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. Defendant did not raise the issue of the voluntariness of his plea in the district court, and the issue would not be considered in his direct appeal.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 13-1829 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Selvin Garcia-Garcia, also known as Jose Villarreal lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock ____________ Submitted: November 13, 2013 Filed: November 18, 2013 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, BOWMAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Selvin Garcia-Garcia pleaded guilty to charges of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute more than 500 grams of a methamphetamine mixture and possession with intent to distribute more than 50 grams of actual methamphetamine on premises where a child was present or resided. The District Court1 imposed a sentence of 135 months in prison and 5 years of supervised release. On appeal, Garcia-Garcia s counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that Garcia-Garcia s guilty plea was involuntary because GarciaGarcia mistakenly believed that he was eligible for safety-valve relief. Counsel suggests that the interpreter who helped counsel and Garcia-Garcia discuss the plea agreement may not have properly communicated its contents to Garcia-Garcia, who speaks only Spanish. Garcia-Garcia has not filed a pro se supplemental brief. Garcia-Garcia did not challenge the voluntariness of his plea in the District Court. His claim is therefore not cognizable in this direct appeal. See United States v. Murphy, 899 F.2d 714, 716 (8th Cir. 1990) (noting that a claim that defendant s guilty plea was involuntary is not cognizable on direct appeal unless first presented to the district court). We have reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), and we have found no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable J. Leon Holmes, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. -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.
