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

Plaintiffs, a class of civilly committed residents, appealed the dismissal of their claims against state officials, alleging that the state's commitment provisions are facially unconstitutional, and that the treatment program as applied to the residents violates their substantive due process rights.The Eighth Circuit affirmed, holding that plaintiffs did not assert a typical substantive due process claim but, rather, they contend that defendant officials must change the way that they conduct annual reviews of civilly-committed persons, design procedures for releasing low-risk residents into less restrictive housing, and carry out a statutory duty to authorize petitions for release of low-risk residents. The court held that an entitlement to these actions is not deeply rooted in the Nation's history and tradition or implicit in the concept of ordered liberty. In this case, plaintiffs had procedures available to them that were sufficient to vindicate their liberty interest in gaining release from detention once the reasons that justified the commitment dissipate. The court explained that the fact that the Act provides additional opportunities to facilitate release, and that state officials allegedly have failed to implement them properly, does not run afoul of substantive due process.In the alternative, the court held that the shortcomings cited by the district court in Missouri mirror those that Karsjens v. Piper, 845 F.3d 394 (8th Cir. 2017), held were not conscience-shocking in Minnesota. Accordingly, the district court correctly reasoned that the as-applied substantive due process claims should be dismissed. Finally, there was no reversible error in the district court's conclusion that plaintiffs abandoned their state law claims. View "Van Orden v. Stringer" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of plaintiff's petition for habeas corpus relief. The court held that plaintiff's counsel's representation did not fall below an objective standard of reasonableness, and even if it did, plaintiff has not demonstrated that he was prejudiced. The court also held that, even assuming that plaintiff fairly presented his claim to the state court, his claim failed where considering an aggravating factor in violation of a state statute alone does not amount to a constitutional violation meriting federal habeas relief. Finally, the court held that the tools were available to plaintiff to make his arguments -- that his youth at the time of the offense and the serious mental illnesses categorically exempt him from the death penalty -- before the state court, he failed to show cause, and his procedural default was not excused. View "Anderson v. Kelley" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to possessing a firearm as a felon. The court held that defendant's prior Arkansas conviction for second degree battery was a violent felony under the Armed Career Criminal Act. The court also held that defendant's two prior Texas convictions for delivering a controlled substance were serious drug offenses under the Act. Accordingly, the district court correctly sentenced defendant as an armed career criminal. View "United States v. Block" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction to one count of distribution of child pornography. The court held that the statute of conviction, 18 U.S.C. 2252A(a)(2), as constitutionally applied to him, did not violate his rights under the First and Fifth Amendments.The court rejected defendant's contention that the statute unconstitutionally violated defendant's First Amendment right to free speech, because child pornography is categorically excluded from protection under the First Amendment. The court also rejected defendant's contention that the statute violated a right o privacy or sexual intimacy under the Fifth Amendment. The court held in United States v. Bach, 400 F.3d 622, 629 (8th Cir. 2005), that the Due Process Clause as interpreted in Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), did not prevent a prosecution for transmitting a visual depiction of a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct, even though the conduct was not criminal. View "United States v. Rouse" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress evidence after he conditionally pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court held that the officer who stopped defendant lacked reasonable suspicion to detain defendant.However, the court held that the officer discovered the evidence against defendant after he learned of an outstanding arrest warrant, and thus the initial violation of defendant's Fourth Amendment rights was sufficiently unrelated to the ultimate discovery of the evidence that suppression was inappropriate. Therefore, the discovery of the evidence used against defendant was attenuated from his unlawful stop. View "United States v. Lowry" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilt to one count of bank robbery and one count of unlawful possession of a firearm as a previously convicted felon, and was sentenced to 216 months in prison. On appeal, defendant argued that the district court violated his rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment by retroactively increasing the severity of his punishment based on an "unforeseeable" judicial decision in United States v. Swopes, 886 F.3d 668 (8th Cir. 2018) (en banc), that was filed after the commission of his firearms offense. The Eighth Circuit held that the en banc decision in Swopes was not so unexpected as to raise due process concerns. View "United States v. Dunlap" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit denied a petition for review of the BIA's decision finding petitioner ineligible for cancellation of removal because he sustained a prior conviction for a crime involving moral turpitude when he was convicted of theft by receiving in violation of Nebraska law. The court also held that Ali v. Barr, 924 F.3d 983, 986 (8th Cir. 2019), foreclosed petitioner's claim that neither the IJ nor the BIA had subject matter jurisdiction over his removal proceedings, because the initial notice to appear served on petitioner did not include information about when and where to appear. View "Inzunza Reyna v. Barr" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. 2255 based on Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015). The court held that Johnson did not justify relief in this case, because defendant's prior conviction for first degree assault qualified as a violent felony under the force clause. Therefore, defendant was not sentenced based on the residual clause and failed to satisfy the requirements for proceeding with a successive motion under section 2255(h)(2). View "Unverzagt v. United States" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit joined the majority of circuits and held that a potential violation of the right to proceed pro se does not, in and of itself, render a plea involuntary. Defendant pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm and then appealed, challenging the denial of his Sixth Amendment right to self-representation. The court held that defendant waived his right to bring his Sixth Amendment claim where the district court complied with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 and defendant's plea was knowing and voluntary. In this case, although the district court may have violated defendant's right to self-representation, he was barred from bringing his appeal on this record. View "United States v. Dewberry" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction of three counts of aggravated sexual abuse of a child. The Eighth Circuit held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the testimony of two witnesses that claimed they were sexually assaulted by defendant in order to establish a pattern of behavior; defendant had an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses; and the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied the motion for mistrial where, considering the nature of the charged offenses and the evidence against defendant, a blurted comment that he had previously committed a parole violation was not the sort of evidence that would create an overwhelming probability that the jury would be unable to follow the curative instruction.However, the court held that defendant had a constitutionally protected opportunity for effective cross-examination regarding the victim's PTSD testimony, and the court was unable to determine whether the failure to allow access to the records was a permissible limitation on cross-examination or whether defendant was denied access to information that might dramatically undermine the testimony of his accuser, the sole eyewitness to the assault. Accordingly, the court remanded the case for the limited purpose of conducting an in camera review of the records to determine the appropriate course of action. View "United States v. Arias" on Justia Law