United States v. Tyrone Anderson, No. 17-3304 (8th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Loken, Bowman and Gruender, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law. Anders case. Defendant's guilty plea was knowing and voluntary; career-offender provision was properly applied as defendant had two controlled substance offenses. [ July 03, 2018
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 17-3304 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Tyrone Anderson lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock ____________ Submitted: June 29, 2018 Filed: July 5, 2018 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, BOWMAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. In this direct criminal appeal, Tyrone Anderson challenges the sentence the district court1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to a drug charge, pursuant to a written 1 The Honorable James M. Moody, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. plea agreement. His counsel has moved to withdraw and submitted a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), discussing whether Anderson entered a voluntary guilty plea; and whether he should have been sentenced as a career offender. We conclude that Anderson’s guilty plea was valid because he stated at the plea hearing that he understood the terms of the agreement, and that he entered into the guilty plea willingly, see Nguyen v. United States, 114 F.3d 699, 703 (8th Cir. 1997); and that the career-offender provision was properly applied based on his convictions for two controlled substance offenses, see U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(a) (defining career offender). Furthermore, we have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal . Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion, 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.
