Gabriel Lee Williams, II was indicted for possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine and being a felon in possession of a firearm. He entered a guilty plea to the firearm count without a formal plea agreement, believing his trial counsel had advised him he would face a sentence of 84 to 108 months. The district court accepted the plea and sentenced Williams to 140 months, the lowest end of the advisory sentencing range calculated by the presentence investigation report. Williams appealed, but his appellate counsel filed an Anders brief stating she could find no meritorious basis for the appeal and moved to withdraw. The government declined to file a brief, and Williams did not file a response to the Anders motion.
The panel unanimously determined that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of the appeal. Under the mandate of Anders v. California, the court must conduct a full examination of the record to determine if any appealable issues exist. The court found that the two potential issues identified by counsel were unsupported by a good faith basis for reversal. First, any challenge to the acceptance of the guilty plea is subject to plain error review because no objection was made below; the court found the plea was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. Second, challenges to the sentencing decision are also subject to plain error review. The court noted that a within-Guidelines sentence is entitled to a presumption of substantive reasonableness. Furthermore, Williams's claim that he pleaded guilty based on incorrect sentencing advice from trial counsel constitutes an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. Such claims are presumptively dismissible on direct appeal and must be pursued in collateral proceedings.
The appeal is dismissed, and the district court's judgment accepting the guilty plea and imposing the 140-month sentence stands. Counsel is permitted to withdraw from the case. The defendant retains the right to pursue any ineffective assistance of counsel claims through a collateral attack, such as a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, but cannot raise them on direct appeal.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download