United States v. Terrance Wilson, No. 18-3655 (8th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Loken, Colloton and Grasz, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law. Anders case. On this record, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 18-3655 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Terrance Wilson, also known as Mutt lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis ____________ Submitted: October 2, 2019 Filed: October 7, 2019 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, COLLOTON, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Terrance Wilson appeals the district court’s1 denial of his request to withdraw his plea and proceed to trial after he pleaded guilty to drug and firearm offenses. His 1 The Honorable Catherine D. Perry, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief arguing that the district court erred by refusing to allow Wilson to withdraw his plea. Wilson has filed a motion for appointment of new counsel. Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to allow Wilson to withdraw his plea, as the plea hearing transcripts show that Wilson understood the plea agreement, and knowingly and voluntarily entered into the agreement, despite his later statements at sentencing asserting that he had not fully understood his plea agreement and that he had been misled by his attorneys. See United States v. Green, 521 F.3d 929, 931 (8th Cir. 2008) (standard of review); United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 890-91 (8th Cir. 2003); Nguyen v. United States, 114 F.3d 699, 703 (8th Cir. 1997). We have also independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and we have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment, grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and deny Wilson’s motion for counsel. ______________________________ -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.
