F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
OCT 6 2000
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 00-5126
(D.C. No. 00-CR-10-K)
NATHANIEL P. HELM, (N.D. Okla.)
Defendant-Appellant.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before TACHA, McKAY, and PORFILIO , Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral
argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument.
Nathaniel Helm pleaded guilty to 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii) (brandishing
a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence) and 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(C)(i)
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
(second or subsequent conviction under this section), for his participation in two
separate armed robberies, having been charged with accomplice liability under
18 U.S.C. § 2 in association with both robberies, as well as other charges. He
was sentenced to the statutory minimum for these two crimes: seven years under
the first § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii) conviction, and, pursuant to § 924(c)(1)(C)(i),
twenty-five years for the second conviction, to be served consecutively as
provided in § 925(c)(1)(D)(ii). In the first robbery, Mr. Helm brandished a 9mm
gun, while his accomplice brandished a sawed-off shotgun. R. Vol. III, Tr. of
Plea Hr’g at 20-21. In the second robbery, Mr. Helm and his accomplice planned
the robbery; Mr. Helm entered the store in advance of his accomplice and
pretended to be a shopper; Mr. Helm watched as his accomplice brandished a gun
and robbed the store; and, in furtherance of their plan, Mr. Helm stayed in the
store after the robbery and lied to the police to impede the investigation. Id.
at 17-19.
Mr. Helm’s plea agreement included an agreement not to directly appeal or
collaterally attack his convictions or sentences, except as to the issue of
ineffective assistance of counsel. In this appeal, he raises ineffective assistance
of counsel, as well as challenging the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his
plea of guilty to the weapons charge at the second robbery. His counsel has filed
a brief pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), as to the
-2-
substantive issue on appeal, and has moved to withdraw in light of Mr. Helm’s
claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. Mr. Helm filed a pro se response brief,
outlining the two issues. The government filed a response brief and supplemental
appendix.
Mr. Helm claims that his guilty plea to the § 924(c) charge with respect to
the second robbery, during which he did not carry a gun, was not sufficiently
supported by the evidence. This claim is without merit. Mr. Helm participated in
the planning for the robbery. He fulfilled his role in the plan by posing as a
customer in the store, observing the robbery which included the use of a gun, and
lying to the police, as planned, to divert the investigation of the robbery away
from his accomplice. Evidence of this conduct is sufficient to support a guilty
plea under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). See United States v. Wiseman , 172 F.3d 1196,
1217 (10th Cir.) (co-defendant’s display of weapon during robbery was sufficient
to support “use” of weapon during the robbery under § 924(c) under Bailey v.
United States , 516 U.S. 137 (1995), thus providing sufficient evidence to convict
accomplice), cert. denied , 120 S. Ct. 211 (1999); United States v. Bindley , 157
F.3d 1235, 1238 (10th Cir. 1998) (evidence was sufficient to show that defendant
“was involved in planning the crimes, he was contemporaneously aware of the
commission of the crimes, he knowingly and willfully performed numerous acts to
aid commission of the crimes, he acted with the intention of causing the crimes to
-3-
be committed, and he knowingly and willfully performed acts after the crimes
were committed to avoid their detection”).
Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel should be raised on collateral
review, rather than on direct appeal. United States v. Galloway , 56 F.3d 1239,
1240 (10th Cir. 1995). Mr. Helm’s claim of ineffective assistance is hereby
dismissed without prejudice.
Attorney J. Lance Hopkins’ amended motion to withdraw as counsel for
Mr. Helm is hereby GRANTED. The judgment of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED.
Entered for the Court
Monroe G. McKay
Circuit Judge
-4-