United States v. Sean Sykes, Jr., No. 19-2477 (8th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: [Per Curiam - Before Loken, Beam and Colloton, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law. Anders case. The court would not consider defendant's ineffective of counsel claims in this direct appeal; defendant's challenge to the reasonableness of his sentence was within the scope of his valid and knowing appeal waiver; appeal dismissed.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 19-2477 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Sean A. Sykes, Jr. lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City ____________ Submitted: February 14, 2020 Filed: February 21, 2020 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, BEAM, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Sean Sykes, Jr., appeals after he pleaded guilty to drug and firearm offenses under a plea agreement containing an appeal waiver, and the district court1 sentenced 1 The Honorable Greg Kays, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. him to a within-Guidelines prison term. His counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the reasonableness of the sentence. Sykes has filed a motion for the appointment of new counsel, claiming that his current counsel was ineffective. To the extent that Sykes raises ineffective-assistance issues, we decline to consider them at this time. See United States v. Woods, 717 F.3d 654, 657 (8th Cir. 2013) (ineffective-assistance claims are usually best litigated in collateral proceedings; this court considers such claims on direct appeal only if record has been fully developed, counsel’s error is readily apparent, or not acting would amount to plain miscarriage of justice). As to Sykes’s challenge to the reasonableness of the sentence, upon careful de novo review, we enforce the appeal waiver. See United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (reviewing validity and applicability of appeal waiver de novo ); United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (appeal waiver will be enforced if appeal falls within scope of waiver, defendant knowingly and voluntarily entered into waiver and plea agreement, and enforcement would not result in miscarriage of justice). Having independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues for appeal outside the scope of the appeal waiver. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal, deny Sykes’s motion for appointment of counsel as moot, and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. ______________________________ -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.
