The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
20-1526•United States of America v. Adrian Lacey
20-1526Court of Appeals for the Eighth CircuitMay 31, 2022
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 21-3737
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Adrian Lacey
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Delta
____________
Submitted: May 12, 2022
Filed: May 20, 2022
[Unpublished]
____________
Before SHEPHERD, STRAS, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Adrian Lacey, who was counseled below but is now proceeding pro se, appeals
after he pleaded guilty to possessing a prohibited object in prison, and the district
-- 1 of 2 --
court1 sentenced him to 6 months in prison. On appeal, Lacey argues that his right
to a speedy trial was violated, his guilty plea was involuntary, and his counsel was
ineffective.
Upon careful review, we conclude that Lacey waived any speedy trial claim by
pleading guilty. See United States v. Cox, 985 F.2d 427, 433 (8th Cir. 1993) (claim
that indictment should have been dismissed for violation of the Speedy Trial Act was
waived by guilty plea); Speed v. United States, 518 F.2d 75, 76 (8th Cir. 1975) (“it
is well settled that a plea of guilty waives any claim to denial of a speedy trial”).
Further, the hearing transcript shows that he knowingly and voluntarily entered his
guilty plea, despite his later filings asserting that he was innocent. See United States
v. Green, 521 F.3d 929, 931 (8th Cir. 2008) (whether a plea was knowing and
voluntary is reviewed de novo); Nguyen v. United States, 114 F.3d 699, 703 (8th Cir.
1997) (defendant’s representations during plea-taking carry strong presumption of
verity).
Finally, we decline to address Lacey’s ineffective-assistance claim in this direct
appeal. See United States v. Hernandez, 281 F.3d 746, 749 (8th Cir. 2002)
(generally, ineffective-assistance claim is not cognizable on direct appeal).
Accordingly, we affirm.
______________________________
1The Honorable D.P. Marshall Jr., Chief Judge, United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Arkansas.
-2-
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.