United States of America v. Armard R. Shields

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 24-1083
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Armard R. Shields
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City
____________
Submitted: May 9, 2024
Filed: May 14, 2024
[Unpublished]
____________
Before SMITH, BENTON, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Armard Shields appeals after he pled guilty to a drug offense. His counsel has
moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386

-- 1 of 2 --

U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the district court’s1 denial of Shields’s motion to
withdraw his guilty plea.
Upon careful review, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion
in denying Shields’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea. United States v. Watson, 883
F.3d 1033, 1037 (8th Cir. 2018) (reviewing denial of motion to withdraw guilty plea
for abuse of discretion). While Shields submitted a post-plea letter to the district
court stating he was unhappy with his counsel’s performance, he testified during the
plea hearing that he was satisfied with counsel’s performance. See United States v.
Trevino, 829 F.3d 668, 672 (8th Cir. 2016) (“The failure to assert objections to
counsel’s performance at the change-of-plea hearing refutes any claim of ineffective
assistance of counsel as a basis for withdrawing the plea.”). Further, Shields’s
statements during the plea hearing demonstrate his guilty plea was made knowingly
and voluntarily. See United States v. McHenry, 849 F.3d 699, 706 (8th Cir. 2017);
United States v. Smith, 422 F.3d 715, 724 (8th Cir. 2005). We also agree with the
district court that there was an adequate factual basis for the plea. See United States
v. Cheney, 571 F.3d 764, 769 (8th Cir. 2009).
We have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.
75 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we grant
counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm.
______________________________
1The Honorable Howard F. Sachs, United States District Judge for the Western
District of Missouri.
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --