Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence for accessing the internet with intent to view child pornography. The court concluded that defendant's within-Guidelines sentence of 48 months in prison was not substantively unreasonable where the district court did not commit a clear error of judgment or abuse its substantial sentencing discretion in weighing the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) sentencing factors. View "United States v. Anderson" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for sexual exploitation of a child and possession of child pornography. Any error in admitting an expert witness's testimony comparing finger and knuckle creases in sexually explicit photos with photos of defendant's fingers and knuckles was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant's guilt. View "United States v. Red Legs" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's order denying defendant's motion for reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(1)(A). The court concluded that the district court did not err in concluding that defendant failed to present extraordinary and compelling reasons for a reduction. The court also concluded that a non-retroactive change in law, whether offered alone or in combination with other other factors, cannot contribute to a finding of extraordinary and compelling reasons for a sentence reduction. U.S. v. Crandall, 25 F.4th 582, 586 (8th Cir. 2022). View "United States v. Taylor" on Justia Law

After plaintiff filed a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. 2255, the district court dismissed most of his claims but granted a certificate of appealability on whether plaintiff's attorney failed to file a direct appeal despite instructions to.The Eighth Circuit affirmed, concluding that the district court's factual finding—that plaintiff did not direct counsel to file a notice of appeal within 14 days of sentencing—was based on a reasonable credibility determination. On the record, the court found no clear error in the finding that plaintiff did not instruct his attorney to file a notice of appeal within the deadline for doing so. View "Dressen v. United States" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for production and attempted production of child pornography and extortion. The court concluded that the district court did not err by refusing to admit a text message confession as unreliable, and the extrinsic evidence lacked probative value and was not relevant. The court also concluded that there was no error in limiting defendant's use of the evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 613(b).The court rejected defendant's Batson challenge and concluded that the district court did not clearly err in finding that the government's race-neutral reason was not pretextual; the district court did not clearly err in finding that PJ 5's equivocation and indecisiveness regarding whether she could follow the law was a nondiscriminatory race-neutral reason for the strike; and the district court did not clearly err in finding these were nondiscriminatory race-neutral reasons to strike PJ 14. Finally, the court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion to strike. View "United States v. Cumbie" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of petitioner's motion for post-conviction relief under 28 U.S.C. 2255. The court concluded that trial counsel's failure to object to a sentencing enhancement, based on an Eighth Circuit decision that controlled the issue at the time of sentencing but was later overruled by the court en banc, United States v. Swopes, 886 F.3d 668 (8th Cir. 2018), does not satisfy the "prejudice" element of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). View "Collins v. United States" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit vacated defendant's sentence for enticing a minor to engage in sexual activity and remanded for resentencing. The court concluded that Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(g) was violated when the probation officer did not submit the revised PSR and unresolved objections to defendant and his attorney at least 7 days before sentencing. The court explained that, without critical fact allegations in the revised PSR relied upon by the government, and denied by defendant, all the district court had to rely on for a very substantial upward variance was a single admitted act of "sexual activity" that made defendant subject to a minimum 10-year sentence. In these circumstances, the court has no reasonable basis to conclude whether the district court would have imposed the same sentence after a sentencing hearing at which those allegations were either set aside as unproved, or were found to be probably accurate after a proper evidentiary inquiry. View "United States v. Berrier" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute 500 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine. The Eighth Circuit enforced defendant's appeal waiver and dismissed the appeal. The court concluded that the appeal waiver is valid, enforceable, and applicable to the arguments raised in this appeal. In this case, defendant does not dispute that the statements he made at his change-of-plea hearing, which carry a strong presumption of verity, demonstrate he knowingly and voluntarily entered into the plea agreement and waiver. Furthermore, the appeal waiver falls within the scope of the waiver. Finally, enforcing defendant's appeal waiver would not result in a miscarriage of justice. View "United States v. Howard" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence imposed by the district court after this court's remand for resentencing on his conviction for firearm offenses. The court concluded that the district court did not clearly err in finding that defendant was not entitled to a reduction for possessing the ammunition for a lawful sporting purpose under USSG 2K2.1(b)(2). The court noted that any error in the district court's determination was harmless in any event, as the district court stated it would have given defendant the same sentence even if it had found the reduction applied. The court also concluded that the district court did not impose a substantively unreasonable sentence where the district court properly considered the factors listed in 18 U.S.C. 3553(a), and did not err in weighing the relevant factors. View "United States v. Sholley-Gonzalez" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for distribution of fentanyl resulting in death and conspiracy to distribute fentanyl. The court concluded that there was no error in the district court's denial of defendant's motion for acquittal where the government's evidence overwhelmingly supports defendant's conviction. Furthermore, there was no error in denying defendant's motion for a new trial. The court rejected defendant's claims of evidentiary errors as these claims raise for the first time on appeal would not be considered. However, the court remanded to the district court with directions to amend the judgment to conform with defendant's indictment and the jury's verdict. View "United States v. Broeker" on Justia Law