United States v. Sanjuana Aaron, No. 17-2602 (8th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Gruender, Benton and Stras, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law. Anders case. Challenge to indictment was waived by defendant's guilty plea; accepting as true defendant's claim that she did not have an opportunity to review her PSR prior to sentencing, the court went through it with her in detail at sentencing, and defendant could show no prejudice; no error in guidelines calculations; court would not consider claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 17-2602 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Sanjuana N. Aaron lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - El Dorado ____________ Submitted: May 2, 2018 Filed: May 7, 2018 [Unpublished] ____________ Before GRUENDER, BENTON, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Sanjuana Aaron directly appeals after pleading guilty in the district court1 to aggravated identity theft and conspiracy to defraud the government. Her counsel has 1 The Honorable Susan O. Hickey, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Aaron has also filed a pro se brief. After careful review, we conclude that Aaron’s arguments lack merit.2 We conclude that her challenge to the validity of the indictment is foreclosed by her guilty plea, see United States v. Muratella, 843 F.3d 780, 783 (8th Cir. 2016), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 1605 (2017), and we find no merit to her newly asserted challenges to the plea colloquy and the validity of her guilty plea, see United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74, 76 (2004) (stating that claims of Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 error not raised in the district court are reviewed for plain error); United States v. Foy, 617 F.3d 1029, 1033-34 (8th Cir. 2010). Even assuming, as Aaron claims, she was not afforded an opportunity to review the presentence report (PSR) with counsel before sentencing, the district court carefully reviewed it with her at sentencing, and she has not shown she was prejudiced. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(a) (setting forth the harmless-error standard); cf. United States v. Prado, 204 F.3d 843, 845 (8th Cir. 2000) (concluding that the district court’s failure to verify that a defendant had read the PSR and discussed it with counsel was waived and harmless where the defendant did not request additional time to review the PSR and did not describe how he was prejudiced). We find no error in the district court’s guidelines calculations, see United States v. Turner, 781 F.3d 374, 393 (8th Cir. 2015) (stating the standard of review), and we decline to consider Aaron’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal, see United States v. Ramirez-Hernandez, 449 F.3d 824, 826-27 (8th Cir. 2006) (stating that ineffective-assistance claims are usually best litigated in collateral proceedings, where the record can be properly developed). 2 We decline to enforce the appeal waiver in Aaron’s plea agreement. See United States v. Boneshirt, 662 F.3d 509, 515-16 (8th Cir. 2011). -2- Having independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. ______________________________ -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.
