Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant pleaded guilty to transportation of child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sections 2252A(a)(1) and (b)(1). At sentencing, the district court determined an advisory guidelines sentencing range of 108 to 135 months in prison, considered the 18 U.S.C. Section 3553(a) sentencing factors, and imposed a sentence of 96 months imprisonment and 20 years of supervised release. The court imposed seven special conditions of supervised release.Defendant appealed his sentence, presenting as the issue for review whether the district court abused its discretion in requiring Defendant to submit to periodic polygraph testing at the discretion of the U.S. Probation Office.The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that here, the district court did not procedurally err. It conducted a thorough individualized analysis of the sentence it was imposing. The seven special conditions of supervised release require that Defendant (5) “participate in a sex offense-specific treatment program,” and (6) “submit to periodic polygraph testing . . . to ensure that he is in compliance with the requirements of his supervision or treatment program.” In response to Defendant’s timely objection, the court carefully explained why the sentence would include this polygraph testing special condition. Moreover, the court held that Defendant has not met his burden to establish that a special condition is unreasonable. View "United States v. Reynaldo Sanchez" on Justia Law

A jury convicted Defendant of being a felon in possession of a firearm. Defendant appealed, arguing that evidence from his iPhone should have been suppressed because the government delayed unreasonably before seeking a search warrant, and that prior firearm convictions were improperly admitted under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b). He also appealed his sentence, arguing that neither his Iowa willful injury conviction nor his two Illinois armed robbery convictions qualifies as “violent felonies” under Section 924(e). He further argued the Illinois robbery convictions were not “committed on occasions different from one another,” Section 924(e)(1), and thus constitute only one prior violent felony conviction.The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that although significantly longer delays have been upheld as not unreasonable, without question the twenty-four-day delay at issue is of concern. The court reasoned that because smartphones “retain data for long periods of time,” delay between the time a cell phone is seized and when it is searched is not likely to cause stored personal data to be lost, or data of potential evidentiary relevance to become stale. More important to the private interests at stake, Defendant was in police custody for the entire twenty-four-day period, and there is no evidence that either Defendant or anyone acting on his behalf made a request or demand for its return, or even inquired about it. Thus, the district court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion to suppress. Further, the court held that the district court properly determined that Defendant’s Section 708.4(1) willful injury conviction is an ACCA predicate violent felony. View "United States v. Darvill Bragg" on Justia Law

Defendant entered a conditional guilty plea to a charge of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine. She reserved her right to appeal an order of the district court denying her motion to suppress evidence that police seized after conducting a protective sweep of a hotel room in which she was staying. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(a)(2).The Eighth Circuit affirmed, concluding that the officers permissibly entered and searched the hotel room. On appeal, Defendant argues that the district court erred in denying the motion to suppress because the police lacked specific and articulable facts suggesting that a person posing a danger to the officers was located inside the hotel room. She maintains that the officers violated her rights under the Fourth Amendment by entering the hotel room without a warrant and that all evidence seized as a result of the entry should be suppressed.The court explained that a protective sweep of the hotel room was justified here as an inspection of spaces immediately adjoining the place of arrest from which an attack could be immediately launched. It is undisputed that officers were positioned in the doorway to effect the arrest, and that police crossed the threshold into the room under the authority of the warrant. Accordingly, the court held that the officers observed evidence of unlawful drug activity in plain view while conducting the protective sweep did not violate Defendant’s rights under the Fourth Amendment. View "United States v. Angela Garges" on Justia Law

Facing five child-pornography counts and one for enticing a minor, Defendant decided to enter into a plea agreement with the government. Of the six counts, he pleaded guilty to three of them: two for receiving child pornography, each from a separate victim. When the presentence investigation report said he was responsible for receiving pornographic images from two others, Minor Victim 3 and H.P., he filed a written objection. At sentencing, the fact dispute never came up. Defendant did not renew his objection, the government did not present evidence that he had received sexually explicit material from Minor Victim 3 or H.P., and the district court never made any findings. Without ever resolving the factual dispute that the presentence investigation report had flagged, the court sentenced him to 210 months in prison.The Eighth Circuit vacated Defendant’s sentence and remanded for resentencing. The court explained that agrees that Defendant specifically objected to receiving sexually explicit images from Minor Victim 3 and H.P., meaning that the district court could not rely on those facts unless the government proved them by a preponderance of the evidence. The government never did so, yet the district court sentenced Defendant as if it had. The government does not dispute that the error here was “clear or obvious.” Instead, the focus is on the next step in the plain-error analysis: whether the procedural error affected Defendant’s substantial rights. The court vacated the sentence explaining that a failure to correct the error will also seriously affect the fairness, integrity, and public reputation of judicial proceedings. View "United States v. Lamark Combs, Jr." on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to bank robbery. The presentence investigation report (PSR) recommended applying a five-level sentencing enhancement for possessing or brandishing a firearm during the robbery. Overruling Defendant’s objection, the district court found the Government proved there was a firearm involved by a preponderance of the evidence. The five-level firearm enhancement resulted in an advisory guidelines sentencing range of 100 to 125 months’ imprisonment. The court after considering the 18 U.S.C. Section 3553(a) sentencing factors imposed a 100-month sentence. Defendant appealed, arguing the district court committed clear error when it imposed the five-level firearm enhancement because the government, by relying on “uncorroborated, unreliable hearsay statements,” failed to prove that Defendant possessed a firearm during the bank robbery.The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in considering the tellers’ interview testimony after concluding that the “statements, though hearsay, were made under circumstances indicating sufficient. Nor did the court clearly err in finding by a preponderance of the evidence that Defendant brandished or possessed a firearm during the robbery. The tellers’ testimony was strong but not necessarily conclusive evidence on this issue, and the security video did not eliminate uncertainty as to the presence of a firearm. View "United States v. Zachary Anderson Wailes" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to possessing a firearm as a felon. 18 U.S.C. Section 922(g)(1). The district court imposed a fifteen-year mandatory-minimum sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act after concluding that Defendant had three prior violent felonies: two for third-degree assault; and another for first-degree burglary with assault. Defendant argued that none of these convictions were violent felonies, however, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment.The court explained that there are two ways for a prior conviction to count. One is through the “enumerated-offenses clause,” which lists offenses that qualify. The other is if the offense “has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another,” otherwise known as the “force clause.” Defendant’s final conviction was for first-degree burglary, which is a “divisible” crime. The particular version he committed was first-degree burglary with assault, which as the name suggests, required him to commit an assault during the course of a burglary. This crime uses the same definition of “assault” as the others, which means it is a “violent felony” too. Defendant argues that Borden v. United States, 141 S. Ct. 1817 (2021) suggests that an assault can never qualify as a violent felony. However, n Minnesota, assault requires intentional conduct, and Borden only “excludes crimes that can be committed recklessly.” View "United States v. Seth Huntington" on Justia Law

Defendant sold capsules of heroin that contained fentanyl to a confidential source in the St. Louis metro area. A superseding indictment charged Defendant with conspiracy to distribute heroin and fentanyl between June 2017 and May 2019, possession with intent to distribute heroin, and distribution of fentanyl in August 2019 resulting in death. Defendant pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute fentanyl.At sentencing, adopting the presentence investigation report (PSR) without objection, the district court1 determined an advisory guidelines sentencing range of 15-21 months’ imprisonment, granted the government’s motion for an upward departure, and sentenced Defendant to 70 months imprisonment. Defendant appeals, arguing the court erred in granting an upward departure based primarily on Defendant’s role in the August 2019 fentanyl overdose death.The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the agent’s testimony, to the extent it included hearsay, bore sufficient indicia of reliability to support its use in sentencing Defendant. Accordingly, the court did not clearly err in finding that the government proved by a preponderance of the evidence that a death resulted from Defendant’s conduct and then granting the government’s motion for an upward departure. Departing upward, the court imposed a sentence of 70 months imprisonment. This sentence is consistent with upward departures the court has approved under Section 5K2.1 for drug distribution conduct that resulted in an overdose death. View "United States v. Jeff Harris" on Justia Law

A jury convicted Defendant of aggravated bank robbery, and the district court sentenced him to mandatory life imprisonment under the federal “three strikes” law. Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence. On appeal, Defendant argued that (A) the district court erroneously admitted evidence of his flight from the second traffic stop; (B) the jury’s verdict lacked sufficient evidence; and (C) the three strikes law is unconstitutional.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed.  The court held that the district court did not clearly abuse its discretion in concluding any danger of unfair prejudice did not substantially outweigh the evidence’s probative value. Here, evidence of Defendant’s flight from the second traffic stop helped establish the government’s narrative that Defendant continually evaded police for ten days following the robbery. It also helped the jury understand why the police found Defendant, as well as incriminating evidence, in another state. Further, Defendant’s sole argument on appeal is that he was mistakenly identified as the robber. But overwhelming evidence indicates his identification was not a mistake. Finally, the court explained that based Defendant’s criminal history outlined earlier, he has proven he remains a danger to the public despite being given a second and third chance to show otherwise. The sentence imposed here was not grossly disproportionate to Defendant’s crime. View "United States v. Anthony Hall" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to possessing a controlled substance with intent to distribute and being a felon in possession of a firearm. The district court determined that Defendant was a career offender under Section 4B1.1 of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines because he had at least two prior convictions for crimes of violence or controlled substance offenses.The Eighth Circuit affirmed, finding that Defendant’s conviction for interference with official acts inflicting bodily injury constitutes a crime of violence. Defendant argued that interference with official acts causing bodily injury can be committed recklessly. If it can, under Borden, it no longer qualifies as a crime of violence. The court held that the offense cannot be committed recklessly. The court explained that reckless conduct is not sufficient. Because interference with official acts inflicting bodily injury cannot be committed recklessly, the Supreme Court’s decision in Borden has not abrogated Malloy. Interference with official acts inflicting bodily injury is a crime of violence under the force clause. Defendant, therefore, qualifies as a career offender under U.S.S.G. Section 4B1.1. View "United States v. Donte Kent" on Justia Law

Defendant alleges that during the third revocation hearing, the district court violated his right to due process because it forced him to proceed either with an incompetent attorney or without any attorney at all.The Eighth Circuit reversed finding that Defendant was denied the right to counsel. The court explained that to show his waiver of the right to counsel was involuntary, a defendant must show the district court forced him to choose between inadequate representation and self-representation.Here, Defendant has shown he was justifiably dissatisfied with his attorney. This is not a case where the evidence shows a defendant who disagrees with his attorney’s strategy or wants to delay the hearing. Instead, the evidence shows an attorney who was not prepared to handle a revocation of supervised release hearing. Further, the attorney’s comment regarding “the big house or the nut house” demonstrates he did not know the factual background of the case or the potential consequences that Defendant was facing. Because Defendant was forced to proceed with either this unprepared attorney or no attorney at all, Defendant’s decision to waive his right to counsel was not knowing and voluntary and his right to due process was violated. View "United States v. Robert Ivers" on Justia Law