Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
United States v. Morrison
Citation: 6 F. App'x 333Docket: No. 00-1710
Court: Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit; March 21, 2001; Federal Appellate Court
Martez Morrison pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine base with intent to distribute and received a 200-month sentence. His court-appointed attorney sought to withdraw from the appeal, citing the lack of nonfrivolous issues per Anders v. California. Morrison's response was considered, focusing on potential appeal issues. Counsel first evaluated a challenge to the validity of Morrison's guilty plea but noted that since he did not attempt to withdraw his plea in the district court, any review would be limited to a plain error standard. The district court adequately ensured Morrison understood the plea's implications and his rights, and his sworn statements about the plea's voluntariness are presumed truthful, making any challenge to its validity frivolous. Next, counsel addressed Morrison's objections to the drug type and quantity in the presentence investigation report, indicating these did not impact his sentence due to the career offender provision. Morrison’s offense level was determined by this provision rather than the drug calculations, rendering those objections moot. Morrison also contended his offense level was incorrectly calculated due to an alleged misapplication of the statutory maximum. However, 21 U.S.C. 841(b)(1)(C) appropriately sets the maximum penalty for his offense category, and his offense level was reduced for acceptance of responsibility. Morrison did not substantiate his claim regarding the statutory maximum, and he waived the right to contest his career offender status by signing the plea agreement. Lastly, any argument regarding a mitigating role in the offense is barred as career offenders are ineligible for such reductions, only permitted adjustments for acceptance of responsibility. Counsel assessed a possible challenge regarding the district court’s refusal to grant a downward departure under U.S.S.G. 5K2.0 based on Morrison's minor role in the offense. The district court clearly stated that Morrison's case was not suitable for such a departure. Jurisdiction to review this refusal does not exist when the court acknowledges its authority to grant a downward departure, as established in United States v. Lovaas. Morrison's other objection concerns the Anders procedure, which he claims amounts to client abandonment. However, the Supreme Court has sanctioned this procedure in scenarios where there is a conflict between counsel's advocacy duties and the need to avoid frivolous arguments. A properly filed Anders brief, as submitted by counsel, does not signify client abandonment. Given that the arguments presented in the brief are deemed frivolous, the court grants counsel’s Motion to Withdraw and dismisses Morrison’s appeal.