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

In 2016, Michael, age 35, pled guilty to possession of child pornography. The court determined that his sentencing guideline range was 97-120 months’ imprisonment. The prosecutor recommended a term of 40 months. A general and forensic psychiatrist had interviewed Michael in 2014, had interviewed Michael’s parents, and had administered psychological tests; he opined that: Michael has Asperger's Syndrome, an autism spectrum disorder, and that his psychosexual and psychological development plateaued around early teens. Before sentencing, Michael had been actively involved in a sex offender treatment program. The director of associates at that program testified that Michael’s continued participation in the program caused him to believe that Michael was at a lower risk of recidivism. The court imposed a five-year term of probation with detailed conditions, varying from the guidelines because it was “the best solution for [Michael’s] Asperger’s problem and mental status.” In 2017, Michael was arrested for alleged violations of probation conditions relating to possession of materials involving pornographic/erotic or sexually explicit conduct; participation in sex offender counseling; use of online access without his probation officer’s approval; and untruthful responses to the probation officer’s questions. Michael admitted to each violation. A new judge imposed a 96-month sentence. The Eighth Circuit vacated the sentence. There is no indication the court considered the Sentencing Commission’s policy statements before imposing sentence; it is unclear whether the court was sufficiently informed about the case. The court failed to explain its decision to impose a sentence seven years beyond the guidelines range. View "United States v. Michael" on Justia Law

Blytheville police responded to a call. The suspect fled his vehicle on foot. A crowd gathered. While Officer Dannar was securing the scene, a man (Reddick) approached. Dannar told him to stop, stating, “the car, you’re not getting it.” Dannar later explained past experiences where persons who have no legitimate interest in a vehicle falsely claim ownership. Reddick did not remove his hands from his large, bulky coat pockets. Sgt. St. Laurent arrived and approached Reddick, who was standing slightly outside the crime scene with his hands in his pockets. St. Laurent thought Reddick was “evasive.” Reddick claimed not to have any identification on him. In response to St. Laurent's repeated requests to remove his hands from his pockets, Reddick would briefly comply but kept placing them back in his pockets. St. Laurent later testified that those carrying a weapon will frequently touch it. St. Laurent announced that he would pat Reddick down as a safety precaution and asked whether he had anything on him that an officer should know about. Reddick hesitated before saying, “No.” As Reddick turned around, his coat swung out, leading St. Laurent to believe that something of some substance was in Reddick’s pocket. St. Laurent found a .38 caliber revolver. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the denial of a motion to suppress and Reddick’s conviction as a felon in possession of a firearm. The officer conducted a valid “Terry” stop; the circumstances met the threshold minimal level of justification and supported the officers' reasonable suspicion that Reddick was engaged in criminal activity. View "United States v. Reddick" on Justia Law

Murray left a store and joined Robinson, who was arguing with the occupants of a van. The driver opened fire. Murray pulled out a handgun and returned fire. Murray was hit fell to the ground. Robinson picked up Murray’s weapon and shot at the fleeing van. The store clerk came out; she heard Murray tell Robinson to put his gun, drugs, and money in her vehicle. Officers later searched Robinson’s car and found the handgun, $95, and 15.14 grams of PCP. Murray pleaded guilty as a felon in possession of a firearm. At sentencing, Officer Whetro described smelling PCP when he approached Murray at the scene and explained that 15.14 grams of PCP is not consistent with personal use but constitutes a distributable amount. The court applied a four-level enhancement under 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) for using and possessing the firearm in connection with possession of a distributable amount of PCP. The application notes explain that this is warranted “in the case of a drug trafficking offense in which a firearm is found in close proximity to drugs.” Murray’s 51-month sentence fell at the high end of his guidelines range of 41-51 months. The Eighth Circuit affirmed. When the felony involves drug trafficking rather than simple possession, the guidelines mandate the enhancement “if guns and drugs are in the same location.” View "United States v. Murray" on Justia Law

A Nebraska jury convicted Mayfield, a California resident, of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine (21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A), and 846). The district court imposed the mandatory minimum sentence of 240 months’ imprisonment. At trial, three cooperating witnesses testified that their methamphetamine supplier, Love, purchased meth from the “Cali Boys,” brothers “Rob” Mayfield and Anthony “Duga” Harris. The Eighth Circuit affirmed, rejecting an argument that out-of-court statements Love made to the cooperators, and recorded calls that Harris made from jail to “Rob” at a California telephone number, were inadmissible hearsay. The statements were made during the course and in furtherance of the conspiracy; such statements are generally non-testimonial, and their admission does not violate the Confrontation Clause The court found the evidence sufficient to convict and upheld the imposition of an obstruction-of-justice sentencing enhancement based on defendant's act of making a throat-slashing gesture to testifying co-conspirator. View "United States v. Mayfield" on Justia Law

Henderson, a 19-year-old black man, was attending a party at a Woodbury, Minnesota Red Roof Inn. Without warning, another young black male, Ballinger, pulled a gun, robbed the other guests, including Mark, and held them hostage. A woman called 911 and then hid her phone. Though the caller was unable to speak with the operator, the operator kept the line open and listened; the operator discerned an apparent confrontation between someone with a gun and another person with a knife. The person with the gun (Ballinger) demanded that the person with the knife (Henderson) give it up. The dispatcher alerted police. During the response, which involved Henderson trying to escape the hotel room while Ballinger fired shots, Henderson was shot by three officers who fired 17 rounds while he was lying on the ground. Henderson died. The district court rejected, on summary judgment, claims by his estate under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The Eighth Circuit reversed. The resolution of the conflicting testimony between one officer's more or less contemporaneous statement to investigators and all of the officers' subsequent unified deposition testimony should be left to a jury; the district court erred in finding the defendants entitled to qualified immunity. View "Henderson v. City of Woodbury" on Justia Law

In 2001, Nelson pled guilty to the kidnapping and unlawful interstate transportation of Pamela for the purpose of sexual abuse which resulted in her death. The government dropped a charge traveling across state lines with the intent to engage in a sex act with a female under the age of 12 which resulted in death. Days later, Nelson attempted suicide by ingesting prescription medicine. The penalty phase jury returned a death penalty verdict. The court allowed Nelson to address the court. Nelson, showing no remorse, blistered the court and the victim’s family with a profanity-laden tirade. The court imposed the death sentence. The Eighth Circuit affirmed; the Supreme Court denied certiorari. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the rejection of Nelson’s 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion. The jury heard substantial mitigating evidence and there was no reasonable probability that its death sentence verdict would have been different if the evidence produced at the habeas evidentiary hearing had been introduced during the penalty phase, so the district court did not err in denying Nelson's ineffective assistance of counsel claims concerning failure to conduct an adequate mitigation investigation, failure to adequately investigate his mental health and failure to advise Nelson to decline to submit to a mental health exam by a government examiner. View "Nelson v. United States" on Justia Law

Phillips, who resided with Coleman, called 911, stating that Coleman had punched her and had a gun. North Little Rock Officer Crowder responded, finding Phillips outside the residence with facial injuries. Phillips opened the door. She and Crowder entered the residence, where Crowder confronted and arrested Coleman after a struggle that involved the use of a taser. Crowder found a large bag of white substance and a large amount of cash in Coleman's pockets, small baggies of white powder on the stairwell, and a handgun and another bag of cocaine in a loveseat near where Coleman was arrested. Additional officers responded and discovered firearms and drugs during a protective sweep of the residence and a warrant search the following day. At a hearing, Phillips contradicted Officer Crowder, denying stating that Coleman struck her and was armed, and denying opening the door and escorting Crowder inside. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the denial of a motion to suppress; Coleman’s convictions for possession with intent to distribute controlled substances and conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute, 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), 846, being a felon in possession of a firearm, 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1), and possession of a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking, 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(1)(A), and his 161-month sentence. Phillips’s testimony established that she possessed common authority over the premises. The court explicitly credited Crowder’s testimony as more accurate. View "United States v. Coleman" on Justia Law

Jackson pled guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 100 grams or more of heroin, 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B), and 846 and two counts of felon in possession of a firearm, 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1). The court applied U.S.S.G. 4B1.1, the Career Offender Guideline, and increased Jackson’s offense level due to two prior state court convictions for a “controlled substance offense.” The court specifically found that Jackson’s 2015 Missouri conviction for possession of a controlled substance (heroin) with intent to distribute was a qualifying conviction. The Eighth Circuit affirmed, finding that the sentencing range was properly calculated and that the sentence imposed is substantively and procedurally reasonable. The court noted that it has previously rejected an argument that Mo. Rev. Stat. 195.211 criminalizes conduct broader than the Guidelines definition. View "United States v. Jackson" on Justia Law

Wilkins committed multiple violations of his supervised release, including an assault on his wife. The district court revoked Wilkins’s supervised release and sentenced him to 12 months’ imprisonment with three years’ supervised release, with a condition that prohibited Wilkins from contacting his wife, either directly or indirectly, during the full term of his supervision. The Eighth Circuit affirmed, rejecting an argument that the sentence was substantively unreasonable. District courts have discretion to impose special conditions of supervised release “so long as the conditions are reasonably related to the sentencing factors enumerated in 18 U.S.C. 3553(a), involve no greater deprivation of liberty than is reasonably necessary, and are consistent with the Sentencing Commission’s pertinent policy statements.” Wilkins has a long criminal history and has had numerous violations of supervised release. The court made the appropriate individualized inquiry and concluded that Wilkins “ha[s] a very serious problem with aggression” and that he was “a risk to harm other people, particularly [his] wife.” The court also ordered the probation office to work with Wilkins and his wife to try to set up a method by which the children could have visitation. View "United States v. Wilkins" on Justia Law

Reggs and two others robbed a Minneapolis store, Reggs pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting a robbery that interfered with commerce and aiding and abetting the discharge of a firearm during that robbery. In calculating Reggs's sentence, the court increased his offense level by two levels, finding that Reggs "recklessly created a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury to another person in the course of fleeing from a law enforcement officer," USSG 3C1.2. The Eighth Circuit reversed. The PSR explains that shortly after receiving the report of the robbery, officers located the getaway car, shined a flashlight into the car, and ordered the occupants to put their hands up; Reggs's co-conspirator drove the car away with Reggs and the third co-conspirator as passengers. After crashing into a parked car, the co-conspirators fled on foot. His co-conspirators were apprehended after a short foot chase; Reggs escaped. Reggs was arrested days later. Even if the flight of the car "recklessly created a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury," that does not mean that Reggs created the risk. Application Note 5 to the reckless-endangerment guideline specifies that "the defendant is accountable for the defendant's own conduct and for conduct that the defendant aided or abetted, counseled, commanded, induced, procured, or willfully caused." The enhancement does not apply to the reasonably foreseeable acts of co-conspirators. Mere acquiescence is insufficient; there must be some evidence of direct or active participation. View "United States v. Reggs" on Justia Law