United States v. Glen Baughman, No. 14-1803 (8th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal case - Sentence. Anders case. Defendant's sentence was not substantively unreasonable; claims of ineffective assistance of counsel would not be considered in this direct appeal.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 14-1803 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Glen Baughman lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Fayetteville ____________ Submitted: February 26, 2015 Filed: March 30, 2015 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, COLLOTON, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Glen Baughman directly appeals after he pled guilty to charges related to production of child pornography, and the district court1 sentenced him to a term of 1 The Honorable Timothy L. Brooks, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. imprisonment within the calculated Guidelines range. His counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that Baughman’s sentence is substantively unreasonable. Baughman has filed a pro se brief, essentially arguing that his guilty plea was invalid and that his counsel was ineffective. Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Baughman. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (describing appellate review of sentences); see also United States v. Bridges, 569 F.3d 374, 379 (8th Cir. 2009) (“The district court has wide latitude to weigh the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors . . . .”). The sentence imposed is undoubtedly long, but Baughman has failed to show the district court “committed any procedural errors, failed to consider any relevant § 3553(a) factor, or improperly considered any irrelevant factor.” United States v. Starr, 533 F.3d 985, 1003 (8th Cir. 2008). We also decline to consider Baughman’s pro se arguments. See VillarealAmarillas, 454 F.3d 925, 932 (8th Cir. 2006) (involuntary-plea claim must be presented first to district court, otherwise claim is not cognizable on direct appeal); United States v. Looking Cloud, 419 F.3d 781, 788-89 (8th Cir. 2005) (except where district court has developed appropriate record or plain miscarriage of justice would occur, court of appeals ordinarily will not consider ineffective-assistance claims on direct appeal); see also United States v. Limley, 510 F.3d 825, 827 (8th Cir. 2007) (“A valid guilty plea is an admission of guilt that waives all non-jurisdictional defects and defenses.”). Finally, having independently reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we conclude that there are no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, subject to counsel informing Baughman about procedures for seeking rehearing or filing a petition for certiorari. _____________________________ -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.
