Justia U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

After the district court granted petitioner partial habeas relief, both petitioner and the state appealed. The Eighth Circuit agreed with the district court that petitioner's guilt-and-penalty ineffective-assistance claims were procedurally defaulted. However, the court held that no procedural default was triggered in the initial Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37 proceedings. In this case, habeas relief cannot be granted on petitioner's guilt-and-penalty ineffective-assistance claims because he cannot establish cause for the default and actual prejudice as a result of the alleged violation of federal law, or demonstrate that failure to consider the claims will result in a fundamental miscarriage of justice.The court also held that the district court did not err in denying petitioner a hearing for his jury-pool ineffective-assistance claim where petitioner received a constitutionally adequate jury and he was not prejudiced. Finally, the court held that petitioner's McCoy-type claim is procedurally defaulted and the court rejected his request for a hearing. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part and reversed in part. View "Thomas v. Payne" on Justia Law

Petitioner sought a petition for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. 2254 and concurrently sought a stay of execution. The district court entered an order granting the motion for stay of execution on the basis that it required more time to consider the merits of petitioner's claims.The Eighth Circuit questioned the applicability of the authorities the district court relied on to enter a stay solely on the basis of time constraints that purportedly prevented even a preliminary consideration of the merits of the two issues petitioner has raised to determine whether he has a significant likelihood of succeeding on either of them. Accordingly, the court vacated the stay of execution and remanded with instructions to dismiss the petition for habeas corpus relief, because the court saw no possibility of success on the merits of either of petitioner's competency claim and actual innocence claim. View "Barton v. Warden Stange" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to illegally possessing a gun. The court held that defendant's sentence was substantively reasonable; the district court did not err by varying upward from the recommended sentence; and the district court considered the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors including defendant's criminal history and his age. Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing defendant. View "United States v. Donahue" on Justia Law

After the United States Probation Office petitioned the district court for modification of defendant's sentence to add three special conditions of supervised release, he appealed the grant of the petition.The Eighth Circuit held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing defendant to proceed pro se at the modification hearing. The court affirmed the imposition of the mental health assessment condition and the search condition. However, the court vacated the financial disclosures condition as vague and overbroad. In this case, the government failed to tailor the proposed special condition to the employment circumstances that warranted modification of Standard Condition 5 and thus imposed an overbroad special condition that imposes a greater deprivation of liberty than is reasonably necessary and is not the minimum extent necessary to protect the public. View "United States v. Sterling" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to submitting false reimbursement claims for services and creating a materially false patient progress note. The court held that the district court did not clearly err by declining to depart downward under USSG 5H1.4 based on defendant's extraordinary physical impairment where he was diagnosed with cutaneous T-cell lymphoma mycosis fungoides, a rare, chronic, and incurable cancer. The court explained that defendant's diagnosis no doubt confirms a very serious condition, but the government convinced the district court of the Bureau of Prison's ability to accommodate defendant's condition and provide appropriate medical care. The court was not left with a definite and firm conviction that the district court was mistaken.The court also held that the district court did not commit any other procedural errors where the district court referenced the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors and discussed several of them. Furthermore, defendant's 27 month sentence was substantively reasonable and the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing defendant at the very bottom of the applicable guideline range. The court agreed with the district court that the guidelines recommended a longer sentence for defendant because of his higher criminal history category, since he had previously committed another similar crime. View "United States v. Dailey" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit denied a petition for review of the BIA's determination that defendant committed two crimes involving moral turpitude. The court held that the BIA did not err in determining that petitioner's conviction for the Minnesota crimes of Criminal Sexual Conduct in the Fifth Degree and knowing failure to comply with Minnesota's sex offender registration statute were crimes involving moral turpitude. The court also held that petitioner failed to exhaust his remaining arguments and therefore declined to consider them. View "Bakor v. Barr" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for two counts of being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition. The court held that there was more than enough evidence for defendant's probation officer and other officers to believe defendant had a firearm on him. Therefore, the officers had probable cause to arrest him without a warrant. The court also held that defendant was in custody when he made both statements at issue. In this case, the "request for clarification" of defendant's statement that he had "something" in his car did not require Miranda warnings. Furthermore, because the bulge in defendant's pocket could have been a gun or other weapon that would have posed a danger to the officers and others, they could ask about it without the formality of Miranda warnings.The court joined its sister circuits in declining to recognize the innocent-possessor defense. The court held that the district court did not err in excluding defendant's proposed testimony that he had found the handgun in his car earlier in the day and was about to hand it over to his probation officer. The court reasoned that, even if defendant intended to turn over the gun (or the ammunition) to his probation officer, it is still a crime to knowingly possess it in the first place. Finally, the court held that the district court did not err in denying defendant a sentencing reduction for acceptance of responsibility; the district court considered defendant's mitigation arguments at sentencing; and the district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing a within-Guidelines sentence. View "United States v. Becerra" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court held that the government did not violate the Speedy Trial Act, and defendant failed to offer any evidence showing that Iowa and federal prosecutors colluded. Furthermore, the district court did not abuse its discretion by failing to hold an evidentiary hearing regarding the existence of collusion.The court also held that the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress where defendant was not unlawfully seized. In this case, prior to producing the marijuana cigarette, the officer did not ask defendant any questions but merely ordered him off the bus, particularly as the smell of marijuana alerted the officer that evidence of a more serious crime than failure to use a turn signal might be uncovered during the stop. Finally, the court held that defendant was not unlawfully searched when the officer conducted a pat-down search incident to arrest; the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conviction; defendant's Rehaif claim failed because there was sufficient evidence that he knew of his prohibited status; and defendant's sentence was not substantively unreasonable nor an abuse of the district court's discretion. View "United States v. Haynes" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's restitution order and certain special conditions of defendant's supervised release imposed after he pleaded guilty to sex trafficking of a child. The court found no error in the district court's restitution amount of $20,000, holding that the evidence supported the amount in light of the aggregate harm to the victim. The court also held that the special conditions -- including a requirement that defendant participate in sex offender treatment including psychological testing and polygraph examinations, a prohibition against contact with any minors without pre-approval, and a requirement that defendant seek prior approval before using temporary commercial lodging, such as a hotel or motel -- where reasonably related to both the offense of conviction and to defendant's history of sexual contact with minor females. View "United States v. Wright" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of habeas relief to petitioner based on his claim that the trial court violated his Sixth Amendment right to a public trial when it briefly closed the courtroom to spectators. The district court denied relief based on the ground that the Minnesota Supreme Court’s decision was neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law.The court agreed and held that it was not objectively unreasonable for the Minnesota Supreme Court to deem it constitutional under the Sixth Amendment for the trial court to explain the parameters of an earlier public order on evidentiary issues in a brief nonpublic proceeding before the jury was sworn. View "Smith v. Titus" on Justia Law