IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-51218
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ROBERT LEE MORRISON,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. A-00-CR-62-All-JN
September 27, 2001
Before GARWOOD, JONES and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Robert Lee Morrison appeals his conviction, following entry of
a guilty plea, for possession with intent to distribute more than
50 grams of crack cocaine. Morrison contends that his plea was
involuntary because he was not admonished at rearraignment of his
rights under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), to have
the Government prove and the jury determine the drug quantity
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5 the Court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under
the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
beyond a reasonable doubt. Morrison contends that the superseding
information was fatally defective because it reported that he
committed the drug offense four months after he entered a plea to
the charge. Morrison contends that his attorney provided
ineffective assistance because counsel did not object to the lack
of an Apprendi admonishment and did not challenge the alleged
defective charging instrument.
We have reviewed the record and the briefs submitted by the
parties and hold that all requirements of Rule 11 were met in this
case. See Rule 11(c); United States v. Cuevas-Andrade, 232 F.3d
440, 444 (5th Cir. 2000). Moreover, any error would be harmless.
United States v. Reyna, 130 F.3d 104, 112 (5th Cir. 1997); United
States v. Coronado, 554 F.2d 166, 173 (5th Cir. 1977). We further
hold that Morrison has not shown reversible error in conjunction
with his claim that the obviously typographical date error in the
superseding information rendered the charging instrument void.
Berger v. United States, 55 S.Ct. 629, 630 (1935), overruled on
other grounds, Stirone v. United States, 80 S.Ct. 270 (1960);
Russell v. United States, 429 F.2d 237, 238 (5th Cir. 1970).
Finally, Morrison has not shown that counsel’s performance was
objectively unreasonable. See Strickland v. Washington, 104 S.Ct.
2052, 2065-68 (1984); United States v. Wilkes, 20 F.3d 651, 653
(5th Cir. 1994) (counsel not deficient for failing to raise legally
meritless claim). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court
2
is
AFFIRMED.
3