United States v. Tyrone Wise, 701 F. App'x 279

Defendant Tyrone C. Wise pled guilty, per a written plea agreement, to conspiracy to distribute cocaine and cocaine base; district court sentenced him to 188 months.
Appellate counsel filed an Anders brief raising one potential issue: whether Wise’s prior South Carolina armed robbery convictions qualify as "crimes of violence" under the Sentencing Guidelines career-offender definition.
Wise filed a pro se brief asserting: grand-jury probable cause and grand-jury misconduct claims, challenges to several sentencing enhancements, and ineffective assistance of counsel.
The district court treated Wise as a career offender under USSG §4B1.1 based on his South Carolina armed robbery convictions; the court did not rely on the separate alleged sentencing enhancements in computing the Guidelines range.
The Fourth Circuit reviewed de novo whether South Carolina armed robbery is a crime of violence and concluded armed robbery necessarily involves threatened use of physical force, so it qualifies under the Guidelines’ force clause/related precedent.
Court held Wise’s guilty plea waived nonjurisdictional pre-plea claims; ineffective-assistance claim not resolved on the record and advised Wise to raise it, if appropriate, in a §2255 motion. Anders procedures were followed and the judgment was affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether South Carolina armed robbery is a "crime of violence" for career-offender purposes	Wise argued prior armed robbery convictions should not qualify as crimes of violence	Government argued armed robbery necessarily involves threatened use of physical force and thus qualifies	Court held armed robbery qualifies as a crime of violence under the Guidelines (force/threatened-force covered); affirmed career-offender treatment
Whether grand-jury indictment lacked probable cause / grand jury was misled	Wise (pro se) contended grand-jury lacked probable cause and was misled	Government maintained indictment valid; these claims are nonjurisdictional and waived by plea	Court held these claims waived by guilty plea and not reviewable on appeal
Whether sentencing enhancements were improperly applied	Wise argued court erred applying two sentencing enhancements	Government noted the district court calculated Guidelines via career-offender provisions and did not use those enhancements	Court held enhancements were not used; no error in calculation based on record
Whether counsel provided ineffective assistance	Wise asserted ineffective assistance	Government argued record does not conclusively show ineffective assistance; such claims are for §2255 collateral review	Court held record insufficient to resolve claim on direct appeal and directed Wise to raise it, if appropriate, in a §2255 motion

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (procedures for counsel filing brief asserting appeal is frivolous)
United States v. Flores-Granados, 783 F.3d 487 (4th Cir. 2015) (categorical approach and review standard for crime-of-violence determinations)
United States v. Montes-Flores, 736 F.3d 357 (4th Cir. 2013) (when to apply categorical vs. modified categorical approach)
United States v. Doctor, 842 F.3d 306 (4th Cir. 2016) (held South Carolina strong-arm robbery qualified under ACCA force clause)
Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258 (1973) (guilty plea waives nonjurisdictional pre-plea claims)
United States v. Faulls, 821 F.3d 502 (4th Cir. 2016) (ineffective-assistance claims generally for §2255 collateral review)
United States v. King, 673 F.3d 274 (4th Cir. 2012) (ACCA precedent applied to Guidelines’ crime-of-violence analysis)
United States v. Jenkins, 631 F.3d 680 (4th Cir. 2011) (same)