United States v. Mark Lembo, No. 17-2861 (8th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Gruender, Murphy and Benton, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law. Anders case. The court would not consider claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in this direct appeal; challenge to voluntariness of guilty plea was not cognizable on appeal because defendant failed to move to withdraw the plea in the district court. Home | Contact Us | Employment | Glossary of Legal Terms | Site Map | RSS Privacy Policy|BrowseAloud
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 17-2861 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Mark Allan Lembo lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Dubuque ____________ Submitted: April 18, 2018 Filed: May 1, 2018 [Unpublished] ____________ Before GRUENDER, MURPHY, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Mark Lembo appeals after he pleaded guilty to a drug offense and the district court sentenced him to 216 months in prison. His appellate counsel has moved for 1 1 The Honorable Leonard T. Strand, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa. leave to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), suggesting that—as a result of trial counsel’s ineffective assistance—Lembo’s guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary. We decline to consider any ineffective-assistance claim 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). We also conclude that any direct challenge to Lembo’s guilty plea, as not knowing and voluntary, is not cognizable on direct appeal because Lembo did not move in the district court to withdraw his guilty plea. See United States v. Foy, 617 F.3d 1029, 1033-34 (8th Cir. 2010) (noting that, to the extent the defendant presented an argument to establish that his plea was unknowing or involuntary, such a claim would not be cognizable on direct appeal where he failed to move in the district court to withdraw his guilty plea). In addition, having independently reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we grant counsel leave to withdraw, and we affirm. ______________________________ -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.
