Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Articles Posted in U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals
by
Defendant appealed her sentence after being convicted of drug conspiracy and possession charges. The district court found defendant ineligible for safety valve relief under 18 U.S.C. 3553(f) because she had been convicted, in 2008, under Iowa law for possession of drug paraphernalia and buying illegal amounts of pseudoephedrine. The court concluded that the district court did not clearly err in determining that defendant's buying conviction was not relevant conduct to her latest offenses. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Schmitt" on Justia Law

by
Defendant appealed his conviction for conspiracy to distribute cocaine base. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant of the conspiracy. The court also concluded that the district court did not err in suppressing wiretap evidence and rejected defendant's claim that the government did not need the wiretaps because it already had enough information to prosecute the members of the conspiracy. While there may have been enough evidence to prosecute some actors, there was not enough to effectively prosecute everyone involved. The wiretaps at issue were requested to shed light on the full scope of the crack conspiracy. The government's use of other investigative techniques failed to produce the necessary information regarding the extensive drug operation. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Milliner" on Justia Law

by
Defendant appealed her conviction for conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute at least one kilogram of heroin. The court concluded that there was sufficient evidence to convict defendant; the district court did not err in denying defendant her "buyer/seller" jury instruction where defendant's participation in the conspiracy spanned years, with multiple drug transactions and multiple customers; and the district court correctly instructed the jury on the drug quantity attributable to her where defendant jointly proposed the disputed instruction and never objected to it. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Tillman" on Justia Law

by
Reggie A. Mathews, a third party, sought a hearing to determine his interest in $412,900.00 seized from the trunk of a car he was driving. On appeal, Mathews challenged the district court's dismissal of his petition for lack of standing under 21 U.S.C. 853(n)(3). The court concluded that Mathews did not meet the statutory requirements where he does not explain the nature and extent or circumstances of his possession as required by section 853(n)(3). Therefore, Mathews' petition was statutorily insufficient and does not state a legal interest. The court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Matthews v. United States" on Justia Law

by
Movant, convicted of conspiring to distribute ecstacy, moved to vacate his 240-month sentence based on, inter alia, the ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. Movant argued that he is entitled to 28 U.S.C. 2255 relief where, applying King v. United States, he argued that his 2005 conviction for resisting arrest may not be counted as a career offender predicate offense because it was grouped with, and received the same sentence as, the non-predicate careless and imprudent driving offense and therefore did not receive a criminal history point under U.S.S.G. 4A1.2(a)(2). On the merits of the career offender issue, the court agreed with the Sixth Circuit's analysis of the interplay between the criminal history provisions of section 4A1.2(a)(2) as incorporated by section 4B1.2. The court concluded that it was bound by the court's prior decision in King even though a majority of the panel believed it should now be overruled to eliminate a conflict with the Sixth Circuit. In regards to Movant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, Movant failed to establish that appellate counsel was constitutionally ineffective in failing to submit a citation to King for the court's consideration or to request supplemental briefing when the court published its decision in King after Movant's direct appeal had been argued and submitted for decision. The court declined to rule that Strickland v. Washington requires an appellate attorney to read advance sheets and consider newly-decided cases in the weeks or months after a direct appeal is fully briefed, argued, and submitted for decision. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court and denied the motion to supplement the record. The court declined to consider new arguments raised in Movant's pro se reply brief. View "Donnell v. United States" on Justia Law

by
The government filed an interlocutory appeal from the district court's order, arguing that 21 U.S.C. 848 requires a full sentencing rehearing - that is, that the statute requires the new jury to decide whether defendant is eligible for the death penalty and whether the death penalty should be imposed. The government argued that the district court erred in excluding evidence to prove an aggravating factor that the original jury did not unanimously find. Determining that the court has jurisdiction to hear the appeal, the court concluded that the district court's approach to defendant's sentencing rehearing contradicts the procedure set forth in 21 U.S.C. 848(j) and (k) in that the new jury would not decide whether the government has proved beyond a reasonable doubt the statutory aggravating factors set forth in the notice of intent to seek the death penalty. The new jury must determine for itself whether the government has proved the statutory aggravating factors alleged in the notice of intent to seek the death penalty. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "United States v. Johnson" on Justia Law

by
Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for two counts of theft of government money, one count of Social Security disability fraud, one count of passing a false financial instrument with intent to defraud, and one count of mail fraud. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant of all charges; the district court did not err in issuing jury instructions concerning judicial notice of the court orders relating to his refusal to provide handwriting samples, or his refusal to comply with those orders; the district court did not err in calculating defendant's advisory guidelines range by imposing an adjustment for obstruction of justice under U.S.S.G. 3C1.1 and in the way it calculated the loss from his offense under U.S.S.G. 2B1.1(b)(1); and the sentence was substantively reasonable. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Ko" on Justia Law

by
Plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against a former police officer in his individual capacity, alleging that the officer used excessive force in tasing and shooting her father. The district court denied summary judgment to the officer based on qualified immunity. The district court found that the circumstantial evidence raised questions of fact regarding material aspects of the officer's account of the event. The court concluded that a reasonable juror could find that plaintiff's father had been raising his arms to defend himself from the officer's gunshots rather than attacking the officer as described. These inferences taken together would support a reasonable conclusion that the father was not the threat that the officer described and the officer's use of lethal force against the father was unreasonable. Accordingly, the court concluded that the district court did not err in denying the officer's motion for summary judgment on this claim. The court affirmed. View "Williams v. Holley" on Justia Law

by
Petitioner appealed the denial of his petition for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2254. The court found that the Minnesota state courts' adjudication of petitioner's ineffective assistance claim was not contrary to Supreme Court precedent. Under either Strickland v. Washington or Lafler v. Cooper, petitioner cannot prevail on a habeas ineffective assistance of counsel claim. Petitioner suffered no prejudice and the record supported the finding that petitioner did not turn down a legitimate plea offer due to incompetent advice. Rather, the state courts found that petitioner turned down the plea offer for a host of other personal reasons, including that he did not want to do jail time, and that he was trying to get a better deal for his friend. Accordingly, the court denied relief under section 2254. View "Barnes v. Hammer, et al." on Justia Law

by
Defendant appealed his conviction for conspiracy to possess cocaine with intent to distribute. The court concluded that the admission of a witness's identifications during the police interview and at trial did not violate defendant's due process rights and were not based on impermissibly suggestive police procedures; evidence of defendant's prior involvement in cocaine distribution was properly admitted under Rule 404(b) to show motive and intent, and the evidence was not too remote in time nor was it more prejudicial than probative; and the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Hickman" on Justia Law