Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Shawn Manning, 4th Cir. (2011)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    8 views4 pages
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case involving Shawn Manning appealing his conviction and sentence. Manning pled guilty to drug and firearm charges and was sentenced to 120 months in prison. On appeal, he claimed he was not competent to enter a guilty plea and that his counsel was ineffective. The court found no evidence that Manning was incompetent at his plea hearing. It also declined to consider his ineffective assistance claims, noting those are generally not addressed on direct appeal. As a result, the court affirmed both Manning's convictions and sentence.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2011-09-16 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 10-4984

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case involving Shawn Manning appealing his conviction and sentence. Manning pled guilty to drug and firearm charges and was sentenced to 120 months in prison. On appeal, he claimed he was not competent to enter a guilty plea and that his counsel was ineffective. The court found no evidence that Manning was incompetent at his plea hearing. It also declined to consider his ineffective assistance claims, noting those are generally not addressed on direct appeal. As a result, the court affirmed both Manning's convictions and sentence.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    8 views4 pages

    United States v. Shawn Manning, 4th Cir. (2011)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case involving Shawn Manning appealing his conviction and sentence. Manning pled guilty to drug and firearm charges and was sentenced to 120 months in prison. On appeal, he claimed he was not competent to enter a guilty plea and that his counsel was ineffective. The court found no evidence that Manning was incompetent at his plea hearing. It also declined to consider his ineffective assistance claims, noting those are generally not addressed on direct appeal. As a result, the court affirmed both Manning's convictions and sentence.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 4

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 10-4984

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff Appellee,
    v.
    SHAWN MANNING,
    Defendant Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Martin K. Reidinger,
    District Judge. (3:09-cr-00158-MR-1)

    Submitted:

    August 25, 2011

    Decided:

    September 16, 2011

    Before KEENAN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Frank A. Abrams, LAW OFFICE OF FRANK ABRAMS, PLLC, Asheville,


    North Carolina, for Appellant. Anne M. Tompkins, United States
    Attorney, Laura Ferris, Assistant United States Attorney,
    Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Shawn

    Manning

    pled

    guilty,

    pursuant

    to

    plea

    agreement, to possession with intent to distribute cocaine base,


    oxycodone,

    and

    marijuana,

    21

    U.S.C.

    841(a)(1),

    (b)(1)(C),

    (b)(1)(D) (2006); possession of a firearm during and in relation


    to a drug trafficking crime, 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(1)(A) (2006);
    and

    possession

    marijuana,

    21

    with
    U.S.C.

    intent

    to

    distribute

    841(a)(1),

    cocaine

    (b)(1)(B).

    total sentence of 120 months imprisonment.

    He

    base

    and

    received

    On appeal, Manning

    challenges his convictions and sentence on the ground that he


    was not competent to enter a guilty plea and that his trial
    counsel was ineffective.
    claims

    the

    magistrate

    In light of these assertions, Manning


    judge,

    and

    subsequently

    the

    court, committed plain error in accepting his plea.

    district

    Finding no

    error, we affirm.
    Because Manning did not move in the district court to
    withdraw his guilty plea, any error in the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11
    hearing is reviewed for plain error.

    United States v. Martinez,

    277 F.3d 517, 525-26 (4th Cir. 2002).

    To establish plain error,

    Manning must show: (1) there was an error; (2) the error was
    plain;

    and

    (3)

    the

    error

    affected

    his

    substantial

    United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732 (1993).

    rights.
    Even if

    Manning makes this three-part showing, this Court may exercise


    its

    discretion

    to

    correct

    the
    2

    error

    only

    if

    it

    seriously

    affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial


    proceedings.

    Id. at 736.

    Before
    ensure

    that

    the

    court

    defendant

    may

    accept

    is

    guilty

    competent

    to

    plea,

    enter

    the

    it

    must

    plea.

    United States v. Damon, 191 F.3d 561, 564 (4th Cir. 1999).

    The

    test for competency is whether [the defendant] has sufficient


    present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable
    degree of rational understanding and whether he has a rational
    as

    well

    him.

    as

    factual

    understanding

    of

    the

    proceedings

    Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (1960).

    against

    As in any

    criminal case, a competency determination is necessary only when


    a

    court

    has

    reason

    to

    doubt

    the

    defendants

    Godinez v. Moran, 509 U.S. 389, 401 n.13 (1993).

    competence.
    Our review of

    the record does not reveal a sound basis to question Mannings


    competency at the time of his plea hearing.

    Accordingly, we

    find no error in the magistrate judges, and later the district


    courts,

    acceptance

    of

    Mannings

    guilty

    plea

    as

    knowing

    and

    voluntary.
    Manning

    also

    claims

    counsel

    was

    ineffective

    for

    failing to request a competency hearing, to further advise him


    concerning the effects of pleading guilty, and to vacate the
    plea.

    Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are generally

    not cognizable on direct appeal unless the record conclusively


    establishes counsels objectively unreasonable performance and
    3

    resulting prejudice.
    (4th

    Cir.

    2008).

    United States v. Benton, 523 F.3d 424, 435


    To

    allow

    for

    adequate

    development

    of

    the

    record, ineffective assistance claims should be pursued in a


    motion filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. 2255 (West Supp. 2011).
    United

    States

    2010).

    The

    establish

    v.

    Baptiste,

    record

    before

    ineffective

    596

    F.3d

    this

    214,

    Court

    assistance

    of

    216

    does

    n.1

    not

    counsel.

    (4th

    Cir.

    conclusively
    We

    therefore

    decline to consider Mannings ineffective assistance claims.


    We
    sentence.
    legal
    before

    therefore

    Mannings

    convictions

    and

    We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

    contentions
    the

    affirm

    Court

    are

    adequately

    and

    argument

    presented

    would

    not

    in
    aid

    the
    the

    materials
    decisional

    process.
    AFFIRMED

    You might also like