United States of America v. Bruce Franklin

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 24-1764
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Bruce Franklin
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis
____________
Submitted: January 24, 2025
Filed: January 29, 2025
[Unpublished]
____________
Before LOKEN, KELLY, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Bruce Franklin appeals after he pleaded guilty to multiple robbery and firearm
offenses pursuant to a written plea agreement containing an appeal waiver, and was

-- 1 of 2 --

sentenced by the district court.1 His counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a
brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the sentence as
substantively unreasonable. Franklin has also filed a pro se brief, challenging his
sentence and the voluntariness of his plea.
Upon careful review, we conclude that the record shows Franklin entered into
the plea agreement and appeal waiver knowingly and voluntarily, and that the appeal
waiver is valid, enforceable, and applicable to the issues raised in this appeal. See
United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (de novo review of the
validity and applicability of an appeal waiver); United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886,
889-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (appeal waiver will be enforced if the appeal falls
within the scope of the waiver, the defendant knowingly and voluntarily entered into
the plea agreement and the waiver, and enforcing the waiver would not result in a
miscarriage of justice). To the extent Franklin raises an ineffective assistance of
counsel claim, we decline to address it. See United States v. Hernandez, 281 F.3d 746,
749 (8th Cir. 2002) (generally, ineffective assistance claims are not cognizable on
direct appeal).
Having independently reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488
U.S. 75 (1988), we find no non-frivolous issues for appeal outside the scope of the
appeal waiver. Accordingly, we grant counsel leave to withdraw and dismiss the
appeal.
______________________________
1The Honorable John A. Ross, United States District Judge for the Eastern
District of Missouri.
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --