United States v. Todd Rader
680 F. App'x 238
| 4th Cir. | 2017Background
- Todd Phillip Rader pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute at least 500 grams of methamphetamine under 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1).
- The district court sentenced Rader to 235 months imprisonment and 5 years supervised release.
- On appeal, counsel filed an Anders brief stating no meritorious issues but raising ineffective-assistance claims and challenging the sentencing court’s reliance on a drug-quantity statement Rader made while intoxicated.
- Rader filed a pro se supplemental brief repeating the challenge to the use of his confession for drug-quantity attribution.
- The government did not respond to the Anders brief; the Fourth Circuit reviewed voluntariness of the confession and ineffective-assistance claims.
- The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court, finding the confession properly considered and directing ineffective-assistance claims (not conclusively shown on the record) to § 2255 proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Rader) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the sentencing court erred by relying on Rader’s drug-quantity statement made while under the influence | Rader: statement involuntary due to intoxication and therefore insufficient to establish drug quantity | Government: statement was voluntary under the totality of circumstances and may be relied on | Held: confession was voluntary; district court did not err in relying on it |
| Whether consumption of intoxicants per se renders a confession involuntary | Rader: intoxication undermined capacity for rational choice | Government: mere intoxication does not automatically render a confession involuntary; must show critical impairment | Held: mere consumption not dispositive; must show confession not product of rational intellect and free will |
| Whether ineffective-assistance claims can be resolved on direct appeal | Rader: counsel ineffective (various claims raised in Anders brief) | Government: such claims not conclusively shown on record and belong in § 2255 proceedings | Held: ineffective-assistance claims not conclusively shown on the face of the record; should be raised, if at all, in § 2255 motion |
| Whether counsel may withdraw under Anders after reviewing record | Appellate counsel: requested leave to withdraw under Anders | Government: no opposition in this appeal | Held: Court denied leave to withdraw but found no meritorious issues and instructed counsel to notify Rader about certiorari rights and procedure for future withdrawal motions |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (procedural requirements when appellate counsel seeks to withdraw on the ground that appeal is frivolous)
- United States v. Pelton, 835 F.2d 1067 (4th Cir. 1987) (totality of circumstances test for voluntariness of statements; independent appellate review)
- Boggs v. Bair, 892 F.2d 1193 (4th Cir. 1989) (intoxication alone does not render confession involuntary; must impair rational intellect and free will)
- United States v. Benton, 523 F.3d 424 (4th Cir. 2008) (ineffective-assistance claims generally not cognizable on direct appeal absent record conclusiveness)
- United States v. Baptiste, 596 F.3d 214 (4th Cir. 2010) (ineffective-assistance claims should be raised under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to develop the record)