USA v. Jerry Chester

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 15-11959
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:09-cr-00320-TCB-GGB-3
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JERRY CHESTER,
a.k.a. Poo Tang,
a.k.a. Jerry Saunders,
a.k.a. Rodrigus Harris,
a.k.a. Montrez Saunders,
a.k.a. Tang,
Defendant - Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
________________________
(May 27, 2016)
Case: 15-11959 Date Filed: 05/27/2016 Page: 1 of 3

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Before HULL, MARCUS, and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Jerry Chester, proceeding pro se, appeals his conviction for conspiracy to
possess with intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§
841(b)(1)(A)(ii) and 846. No reversible error has been shown; we affirm.
Pursuant to a written plea agreement, Chester pleaded guilty to one count of
conspiracy to possess cocaine. In exchange, the government agreed to dismiss the
remaining eight counts against Chester for other drug and firearm offenses. At the
plea colloquy, the district court accepted Chester’s guilty plea and later imposed a
below-guidelines sentence of 264 months’ imprisonment.
On appeal, Chester contends he received ineffective assistance of counsel
during the plea negotiations. In particular, Chester says that his trial lawyer
misrepresented the terms of the written plea agreement by telling Chester that, in
exchange for pleading guilty, the charge against Chester would be reduced to a
lesser-degree offense. Chester argues that, but for his lawyer’s misrepresentation,
he would not have pleaded guilty. Therefore, he says his plea was not knowing
and voluntary.
Case: 15-11959 Date Filed: 05/27/2016 Page: 2 of 3

-- 2 of 3 --

3
In general, we will not “consider claims of ineffective assistance of counsel
raised on direct appeal where the district court did not entertain the claim or
develop a factual record.” United States v. Bender, 290 F.3d 1279, 1284 (11th Cir.
2002). Instead, “[t]he preferred means for deciding a claim of ineffective
assistance of counsel is through a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion even if the record
contains some indication of deficiencies in counsel’s performance.” United States
v. Patterson, 595 F.3d 1324, 1328-29 (11th Cir. 2010) (quotation omitted) (citing
Massaro v. United States, 123 S. Ct. 1690 (2003).
Chester raises his claim of ineffective-assistance-of-counsel for the first time
on direct appeal. The record contains no information about the conversations
Chester had with his trial lawyer during the plea negotiation process or about
conversations on the terms of the plea agreement. Because the record is not yet
sufficiently developed on this issue, we decline to consider Chester’s ineffective-
assistance-of-counsel claim on direct appeal. He is free to attempt to assert the
claim per 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
AFFIRMED.
Case: 15-11959 Date Filed: 05/27/2016 Page: 3 of 3

-- 3 of 3 --