Filed: Mar. 24, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: _ No. 96-2389 _ Aaron Shelton, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Missouri. United States of America, * * (PUBLISHED) Appellee. * _ Submitted: March 6, 1997 Filed: March 24, 1997 _ Before HANSEN, MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Aaron Shelton appeals the district court's1 denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. In his motion, Shelton alleged his appellate counsel was ineffective in that he "misled and
Summary: _ No. 96-2389 _ Aaron Shelton, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Missouri. United States of America, * * (PUBLISHED) Appellee. * _ Submitted: March 6, 1997 Filed: March 24, 1997 _ Before HANSEN, MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Aaron Shelton appeals the district court's1 denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. In his motion, Shelton alleged his appellate counsel was ineffective in that he "misled and ..
More
___________
No. 96-2389
___________
Aaron Shelton, *
*
Appellant, *
* Appeal from the United States
v. * District Court for the
* Eastern District of Missouri.
United States of America, *
* (PUBLISHED)
Appellee. *
___________
Submitted: March 6, 1997
Filed: March 24, 1997
___________
Before HANSEN, MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
___________
PER CURIAM.
Aaron Shelton appeals the district court's1 denial of his 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 motion. In his motion, Shelton alleged his appellate counsel was
ineffective in that he "misled and tricked" Shelton into entering a
conditional guilty plea by indicating he would appeal the denial of
Shelton's suppression motion, and then failing to include this issue in
Shelton's direct appeal.
On direct appeal, Shelton's counsel filed, and we accepted, Shelton's
pro se brief, which raised Shelton's suppression claims. Although our
opinion in that case did not specifically address these arguments, see
United States v. Shelton, 66 F.3d 991 (8th Cir. 1995) (per curiam), cert.
denied,
116 S. Ct. 1364 (1996), we considered and rejected them both on
direct appeal and in denying
1
The Honorable Stephen N. Limbaugh, United States District
Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.
Shelton's pro se petition for rehearing. Therefore, we conclude the
district court did not err in denying Shelton's motion without an
evidentiary hearing. See Engelen v. United States, 68 F.3d 238, 241 (8th
Cir. 1995); United States v. Duke,
50 F.3d 571, 576 (8th Cir.), cert.
denied,
116 S. Ct. 224 (1995).
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
A true copy.
Attest:
CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
-2-
