United States of America v. Rodney Brazelton

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted August 31, 2022
Decided August 31, 2022
Before
FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge
AMY J. ST. EVE, Circuit Judge
CANDACE JACKSON-AKIWUMI, Circuit Judge
No. 22-1230
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
RODNEY BRAZELTON,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Central District of Illinois.
No. 20-CR-10052-001
James E. Shadid,
Judge.
O R D E R
Rodney Brazelton pleaded guilty to distributing crack cocaine. See 21 U.S.C.
§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(c). He later sought to withdraw his plea, but the district court denied
his request and sentenced him to the term to which he agreed in his plea deal—time
served (11 months in federal custody and 5 months in state custody) and three years’
supervised release. Brazelton appeals, but his appointed counsel asserts that the appeal
is frivolous and moves to withdraw. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967).
Because counsel’s brief appears thorough, we limit our review to the subjects he
discusses and those that Brazelton raises in response. See C IR . R. 51(b); United States v.
Bey, 748 F.3d 774, 776 (7th Cir. 2014).
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with F ED. R. APP . P. 32.1

-- 1 of 3 --

No. 22-1230 Page 2
Counsel first considers whether Brazelton could challenge the voluntariness of
his plea. But counsel does not tell us, as he should, whether he consulted and advised
Brazelton about the risks and benefits of challenging the plea. See United States v.
Konczak, 683 F.3d 348, 349 (7th Cir. 2012); United States v. Knox, 287 F.3d 667, 671
(7th Cir. 2002). Counsel’s oversight is harmless, however, because we agree with him
that any challenge to the plea would be frivolous. The court accepted Brazelton’s plea
after conducting a colloquy that substantially complied with Rule 11 of the Federal
Rules of Criminal Procedure. The court determined that Brazelton understood, for
instance, the nature of the charges, the trial rights he was waiving, and the maximum
penalties for his offense. See F ED. R. C RIM . P. 11(b)(1). The court informed Brazelton that
he had the right to the assistance counsel at every stage of the proceedings, and
Brazelton confirmed under oath that he was satisfied with his representation. The court
further ensured that the plea was supported by an adequate factual basis and made
voluntarily. See F ED. R. C RIM . P. 11(b)(2)–(3). The court also answered all of Brazelton’s
questions, and Brazelton confirmed under oath that his medications did not hamper his
ability to understand the agreement.
Relatedly, counsel considers whether Brazelton could challenge the denial of his
motion to withdraw. Nearly a month after he entered his plea, Brazelton moved to
withdraw it based on the effect his medications had on his understanding of the
agreement. But counsel appropriately declines to raise this argument, given that
Brazelton’s reason to withdraw his plea plainly contradicted his sworn statements
during the plea colloquy. See United States v. Merrill, 23 F.4th 766, 770 (7th Cir. 2022);
United States v. Peterson, 414 F.3d 825, 827 (7th Cir. 2005).
Counsel, along with Brazelton, also considers whether Brazelton could raise a
non-frivolous challenge to his plea agreement based on either his innocence or the
insufficiency of the indictment. But counsel appropriately points out that Brazelton
waived those challenges by pleading guilty and agreeing with the government’s factual
basis. See United States v. Robinson, 964 F.3d 632, 640 (7th Cir. 2020); United States v.
Wheeler, 857 F.3d 742, 745 (7th Cir. 2017).
Finally, Brazelton argues that his attorney in the district court pressured him into
taking the plea deal. But as counsel properly explains, claims of ineffective assistance of
counsel are best saved for collateral review, where an evidentiary foundation can be
developed. See Massaro v. United States, 538 U.S. 500, 504–05 (2003); United States v. Cates,
950 F.3d 453, 457 (7th Cir. 2020).

-- 2 of 3 --

No. 22-1230 Page 3
We therefore GRANT counsel’s motion to withdraw and DISMISS the appeal.

-- 3 of 3 --