United States of America v. Freddie Franklin

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 24-3416
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Freddie Franklin
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis
____________
Submitted: April 15, 2025
Filed: April 18, 2025
[Unpublished]
____________
Before GRUENDER, KELLY, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Freddie Franklin appeals after he pleaded guilty to a drug offense pursuant to
a plea agreement containing an appeal waiver, and the district court1 sentenced him
1The Honorable Audrey G. Fleissig, United States District Judge for the
Eastern District of Missouri.

-- 1 of 2 --

to time served and the minimum term of supervised release. His counsel has moved
to withdraw and has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967), questioning whether the district court procedurally erred in imposing
Franklin’s sentence by not adequately determining if his guilty plea was knowing and
voluntary.
To the extent Franklin challenges the voluntariness of his guilty plea, the claim
is not cognizable on direct appeal. See United States v. Foy, 617 F.3d 1029, 1033-34
(8th Cir. 2010) (claim that plea was unknowing or involuntary would not be
cognizable on direct appeal where defendant failed to move in district court to
withdraw his guilty plea). Additionally, Franklin’s challenge to the procedural
reasonableness of his sentence is moot. See United States v. Aden, 830 F.3d 812,
816-17 (8th Cir. 2016) (challenge to sentence was moot where defendant had been
released from custody); United States v. Williams, 475 F.3d 468, 479 (2d Cir. 2007)
(defendant’s appeal was rendered moot upon his release from prison because there
was no possibility on remand that district court could reduce statutory minimum term
of supervised release); see also United States v. Gehl, 128 F.4th 1001, 1008-09 (8th
Cir. 2025) (challenge to sentence was moot where district court sentenced defendant
to mandatory minimum sentence).
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 dismiss the appeal.
______________________________
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --