Filed: Jul. 12, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit _ No. 16-4430 _ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Randel Branscum lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant _ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock _ Submitted: July 3, 2017 Filed: July 12, 2017 [Unpublished] _ Before BENTON, BOWMAN, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Randel Branscum appeals after he pleaded guilty with a written plea agreeme
Summary: United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit _ No. 16-4430 _ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Randel Branscum lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant _ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock _ Submitted: July 3, 2017 Filed: July 12, 2017 [Unpublished] _ Before BENTON, BOWMAN, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Randel Branscum appeals after he pleaded guilty with a written plea agreemen..
More
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 16-4430
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Randel Branscum
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock
____________
Submitted: July 3, 2017
Filed: July 12, 2017
[Unpublished]
____________
Before BENTON, BOWMAN, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Randel Branscum appeals after he pleaded guilty with a written plea agreement
to a civil rights offense and the District Court1 imposed the agreed-upon sentence.
1
The Honorable Brian S. Miller, Chief Judge, United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Arkansas.
Branscum’s counsel has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief under
Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967), questioning whether Branscum received
effective assistance of counsel.
We decline to address the ineffective-assistance claim on direct appeal. See
United States v. Ramirez-Hernandez,
449 F.3d 824, 826–27 (8th Cir. 2006) (noting
that ineffective-assistance claims “are usually best litigated in collateral proceedings”
where the record can be properly developed). We have reviewed the record under
Penson v. Ohio,
488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), and we have found no non-frivolous issues
for appeal. We affirm the judgment, and we grant counsel’s motion for leave to
withdraw.
______________________________
-2-