United States v. Patrick Brigaudin, No. 18-1702 (8th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Benton, Bowman and Erickson, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. The court will not enforce the appeal waiver in the plea agreement; defendant did not move to withdraw his guilty plea and his claim that the plea was involuntary is not cognizable; speedy-trial claim is foreclosed by the guilty plea; no error in imposing a leadership role enhancement; claim of ineffective assistance of counsel would not be considered in a direct appeal.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 18-1702 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Patrick Roger Brigaudin lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Springfield ____________ Submitted: December 3, 2018 Filed: December 11, 2018 [Unpublished] ____________ Before BENTON, BOWMAN, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Patrick Roger Brigaudin appeals after he pled guilty to conspiring to distribute methamphetamine and launder money. The district court1 sentenced him to 360 months. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms. 1 The Honorable M. Douglas Harpool, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. Counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), acknowledging an appeal waiver in Brigaudin’s plea agreement. Brigaudin has filed a pro se brief challenging the enforceability of the appeal waiver and the voluntariness of his guilty plea, raising a speedy-trial claim, and challenging the assessment of a leadership-role enhancement at sentencing. Upon careful review, this court declines to enforce the appeal waiver. See United States v. Boneshirt, 662 F.3d 509, 515-16 (8th Cir. 2011). This court concludes that Brigaudin’s assertion that his guilty plea was involuntary is not cognizable on direct appeal because he did not move in the district court to withdraw his guilty plea, and the speedy-trial claim is foreclosed by the guilty plea. See United States v. Foy, 617 F.3d 1029, 1033-34 (8th Cir. 2010); United States v. Muratella, 843 F.3d 780, 783 (8th Cir. 2016), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 1605 (2017). The leadership-role enhancement was not clearly erroneous, as the undisputed evidence supported an inference that Brigaudin was at the center of the conspiracy. See United States v. Garcia, 512 F.3d 1004, 1005 (8th Cir. 2008). To the extent Brigaudin is attempting to raise an ineffective-assistance claim that requires development of matters outside the record, this court declines to address the claim in this direct appeal. See United States v. Ramirez-Hernandez, 449 F.3d 824, 826-27 (8th Cir. 2006). The court has independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and finds no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. The judgment is affirmed. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted. ______________________________ -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.
