Court: Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit; August 19, 2004; Federal Appellate Court
Wayne Askew appeals his conviction and sentencing for possession with intent to distribute over fifty grams of crack cocaine, a violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). The appeal was referred to a panel of the Sixth Circuit, which unanimously decided that oral argument was unnecessary. At sentencing, the district court denied defense counsel's request for a downward departure in Askew's criminal history guidelines, resulting in a 151-month prison sentence. Subsequently, Askew expressed dissatisfaction with his counsel, prompting counsel to seek permission to withdraw, which the court granted, appointing new representation for Askew.
The replacement counsel filed a "no merit" brief under Anders v. California, indicating no viable grounds for appeal, and Askew did not respond to this motion. The court reviewed the record and found that Askew's guilty plea was valid, having been entered voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently, as required by the totality of the circumstances. The district court adhered to Fed. R. Crim. P. 11, ensuring Askew understood his rights and the implications of his plea, confirming that he comprehended the charges and potential sentencing consequences. The court concluded that Askew's guilty plea was appropriately supported by a factual basis, affirming its validity.
The district court affirmed Askew's rights during the plea process, including the right to a jury trial, to subpoena witnesses, to counsel, the presumption of innocence, the government's burden of proof, and the right against self-incrimination. Askew acknowledged his understanding of these rights and admitted his guilt, satisfying the requirements of Fed. R. Crim. P. 11. His guilty plea was made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily, with no objections raised during the plea colloquy. Any unobjected errors in the plea colloquy are only reversible if they are plain and affect substantial rights, which was not the case here.
The district court correctly sentenced Askew, who did not contest the sentencing calculations in the presentence investigation report and conceded their accuracy, thereby forfeiting any potential sentencing claims absent plain error. Askew's request for a downward departure based on an alleged overrepresentation of his criminal history was also deemed non-appealable, as the district court properly computed the guideline range, was aware of its discretion regarding departures, and did not violate guidelines or federal law. The court's decision to deny the downward departure was based on the facts and not due to any misunderstanding of its authority.
Additionally, while considering the implications of the Supreme Court's decision in Blakely v. Washington, it was determined that no specific facts affecting the sentencing level were determined by the judge that Askew did not admit in the plea agreement. Thus, Blakely did not impact the validity of his sentence. The review of the record found no errors warranting reversal, leading to the affirmation of the district court's judgment and granting of counsel's motion to withdraw.
