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

The Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of petitioner's motion to vacate his conviction under 28 U.S.C. 2255, based on the ineffective assistance of counsel under Strickland v. Washington. Taking petitioner's assertions as true, the court held that counsel provided false assurance that petitioner's conviction for robbery would not result in his removal from this country and nothing in the record contradicted petitioner's factual assertions about counsel's advice. Furthermore, petitioner showed prejudice by asserting that he would have rejected the plea and insisted on trial but for counsel's misadvice.Therefore, the court held that the record did not conclusively show that petitioner was entitled to no relief and the district court abused its discretion by denying relief without an evidentiary hearing. Accordingly, the court remanded for an evidentiary hearing. View "Dat v. United States" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress evidence and sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court held that police pursuit in attempting to seize defendant did not amount to a seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment; the seizure of items from defendant's pockets after he was detained was not unconstitutional under the Terry stop because his flight from the officers in an area known for gun-related crime was sufficient to justify a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. Furthermore, the stop occurred in the middle of the night and an observer had previously observed a pistol in defendant's hand.The court also held that the officers were entitled to conduct a pat down search; after the discovery of the brass knuckles, the officers had probable cause to arrest defendant for carrying a dangerous weapon under Iowa state law; the seizure of the items in defendant's pockets was lawful as a search incident to arrest; and the place where the pistol was found, a ravine beyond the property line of defendant's residence, did not implicate defendant's Fourth Amendment rights. Finally, the district court did not err by applying a four-level sentencing enhancement under USSG 2K2.1(b)(6)(B). View "United States v. Houston" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress evidence found in a bag defendant had been carrying. Defendant had pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm and ammunition by a felon. The court held that, although defendant was in custody at the time, those in custody can still voluntarily consent to a search and, in this case, defendant had been advised of his constitutional rights and his statements were not the result of officers questioning him or asking for consent. Rather, defendant was responding to the resident and did so less than thirty minutes after he had been taken into custody and less than fifteen minutes after he had been read his Miranda rights. Furthermore, even if defendant did not consent to the search, the evidence would have been admissible under the inevitable discovery doctrine. View "United States v. Sallis" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of petitioner's 28 U.S.C. 2255 petition based on Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015). The court held that petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the residual clause led the sentencing court to apply a sentencing enhancement under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) based on a prior aggravated criminal sexual abuse conviction, and the classification was not harmless because a conviction thereunder did not constitute a violent felony under current law. The court also held that the district court erred in determining that petitioner's drug conviction qualified as a serious drug offense. Therefore, the court held that petitioner no longer had three prior felony convictions that qualified as predicate offenses. Because petitioner has already served the maximum time authorized by statute, the district court shall direct that he be released from custody immediately. View "Lofton v. United States" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for possession of firearms in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime (count 5) and possession with the intent to distribute methamphetamine (count 7). The court affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion for acquittal and held that a jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant possessed firearms in furtherance of a drug crime and therefore the evidence was sufficient to convict of count 5. The court also held that the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant of count 7 where a reasonable jury could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant was guilty of possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute it. View "United States v. Druger" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit vacated defendant's sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to one count of possession of child pornography involving a prepubescent minor. The government agreed that defendant's criminal-history score was miscalculated because the applicable Minnesota statutes of conviction, Minn. Stat. 609.342-.343, apply to victims under the age of 13, while the federal comparator statute, 18 U.S.C. 2241(c), in relevant part, applies to victims under the age of 12. However, the government argued that resentencing was unwarranted.The court held, however, that defendant established that the error in this case was plain and that the error seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings such that the court must exercise its discretion to remedy the error. In this case, without finality from proceedings involving defendant's concurrent state sentence, it was reasonably likely that the error in calculating defendant's federal sentence could result in him spending more time in prison. Accordingly, the court remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Barthman" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of habeas relief to petitioner based on double jeopardy grounds. Before petitioner was tried and convicted in state court, a jury had been impaneled in the prosecution of the same charge against him but the state trial court declared a mistrial before the trial actually began because the prosecutor sustained an injury.The court held that the Minnesota Court of Appeals' determination that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting a mistrial based on manifest necessity was not an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. In this case, the state court did not violate petitioner's Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights by concluding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by declaring that manifest necessity justified the mistrial grant. View "Fenstermaker v. Halvorson" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to receiving visual depictions of minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct. The court held that the government did not breach the plea agreement by arguing for an obstruction of justice enhancement for defendant's pre-plea conduct, while at the same time adhering to its recommendation for an acceptance of responsibility reduction under USSG 3E1.1; the government's argument in favor of an obstruction of justice enhancement was not synonymous with an argument against an acceptance of responsibility reduction; and the district court did not err by applying a two-level increase for obstruction of justice under USSG 3C1.1 and by denying defendant an acceptance of responsibility reduction. View "United States v. Beattie" on Justia Law

Defendants Waits and Mills appealed their convictions and sentences for wire fraud related to their involvement with government feeding programs to children in low income areas. The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendants' convictions and held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing defendants' proffered jury instructions; the district court did not err by admitting into evidence a recording of a conversation between Waits and a coconspirator; the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Waits' motion for a new trial; and the district court did not err in calculating Waits' criminal history score and in sentencing him. However, the court vacated and remanded the forfeiture order against Waits, because the order was based on the incorrect statute. View "United States v. Waits" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendants' convictions and sentences for conspiracy and drug related crimes. The court held that the district court did not constructively amend the indictment when it allowed evidence of drug trafficking activity during September 2015, because the conspiracy continued through on or about that date and encompassed events that occurred reasonably near September 1; the evidence was sufficient to convict the Lopez defendants of conspiracy to traffic 500 grams of methamphetamine; sufficient evidence supported Defendant Hernandez's conviction for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine; there was no obvious error in the jury instructions regarding the charges against the Lopez defendants; there was sufficient evidence to convict the Lopez defendants of possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime; and, although there was an obvious error in imposing a sentence that exceeded sixty months in Defendant Moreno Lopez's case, the error was harmless because the same concurrent sentence of 151 months in prison was properly imposed on the other ten counts. View "United States v. Hernandez" on Justia Law