United States v. Ricardo Martinez, No. 15-1055 (8th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Loken, Bowman and Gruender, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law. Anders case. Defendant signed a valid waiver of his right of appeal as part of the plea agreement in the case, and the appeal is dismissed; ineffective assistance of counsel claim would not be considered on direct appeal. [ July 23, 2015
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 15-1055 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Ricardo Martinez lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Davenport ____________ Submitted: July 21, 2015 Filed: July 24, 2015 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, BOWMAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Ricardo Martinez appeals from the sentence the District Court1 imposed in accordance with the terms of his plea agreement, which also included an appeal 1 The Honorable James E. Gritzner, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa. waiver. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the reasonableness of Martinez’s sentence. Martinez has filed a pro se brief raising ineffective-assistance claims and suggesting that the District Court committed sentencing errors. We decline to consider Martinez’s ineffective-assistance claims on direct appeal. See United States v. Woods, 717 F.3d 654, 657 (8th Cir. 2013) (explaining that claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are usually best litigated in collateral proceedings). As to the remaining issues, we enforce the appeal waiver. See United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889–92 (8th Cir.) (en banc) (discussing enforcement of appeal waivers), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 997 (2003). In addition, we have independently reviewed the record, see Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal outside the scope of the appeal waiver. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal and grant counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw. ______________________________ -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
