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

Defendant pleaded guilty to murdering his cousin and her husband. At sentencing, the defendant was represented by two attorneys with experience handling capital cases. The jury returned a sentence of death for each murder, finding seven aggravating factors beyond a reasonable doubt. Defendant then petitioned the district court for a writ of habeas corpus under Section 2254, raising twenty-eight claims, including a claim that his trial attorneys were ineffective for failing to investigate and present evidence of his adjustment to incarceration.The Eighth Circuit reviewed whether a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel is substantial under Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1 (2012). Martinez requires a defendant to show that his underlying claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel has “some merit.” The circuit court agreed with the defendant that the district court erred by treating the substantiality standard as different from the certificate-of-appealability standard. However, the court concluded that the error was harmless because the defendant’s ineffective-assistance claim was insubstantial even under the correct standard. The circuit court found that no reasonable jurist could believe that or find it debatable whether either prong of the defendant’s ineffective-assistance claim is met. Thus, the defendant cannot show cause for his failure to raise the claim in state postconviction proceedings. View "Brian Dorsey v. David Vandergriff" on Justia Law

Frustrated with then-President Donald Trump, the defendant obtained his parents' .40 caliber pistol and headed to Washington, D.C. Defendant’s plan was to put himself in a position where he could shoot President Trump. However, the defendant had no concrete plans. On his way, the defendant began to have second thoughts. He called his father and eventually turned around.The district court deferred ruling on the defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal pending the jury’s verdict. However, upon the jury finding the defendant guilty, the district court explained that, although it was a close call, the evidence was sufficient.While the Eighth Circuit found aspects of the case troubling, the court is “without authority to reverse a conviction as long as there is sufficient evidence in the record from which the jury could reasonably” find the defendant guilty. Here, the evidence was sufficient that the defendant’s actions constituted a true threat. View "United States v. Timothy Cessor" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to embezzlement and conspiracy to embezzle. The sentencing guidelines provided a base range of 8 to 14 months’ imprisonment. However, the prosecution sought an upward variance based on an uncharged shooting involving Defendant.The day before Defendant committed the crimes for which he was charged, he became frustrated after an altercation in a convenience store, fired a gun in the direction of two men outside the store, and hit and killed a child. The next day, Defendant and his aunt conspired to embezzle money from Defendant’s employer so he could leave town. After considering the shooting as well as Defendant’s intellectual disability, the district court sentenced Defendant to 120 months’ imprisonment.The Eighth Circuit affirmed Defendant’s sentence. Although the district court did not provide an in-depth discussion of Defendant’s intellectual disability, the court did not commit procedural error. The court also held that Defendant’s sentence was not substantively unreasonable in light of the facts. The district court did not err in heavily relying on the uncharged shooting to vary upward. Nor did the court err in failing to consider Defendant’s intellectual disability. View "United States v. Malik Ross" on Justia Law

Defendant and nine others were charged with conspiring to sell methamphetamine between 2015 and 2019. The other nine co-defendants all pleaded guilty and cooperated with the government in Defendant's case. The prosecution sought admission of controlled buy in which Defendant sold methamphetamine to a confidential informant several months before the conspiracy began. The district court admitted the transaction with a limiting instruction. A jury found Defendant guilty, and the judge sentenced him to 130 months incarceration.The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court held that the co-conspirators' statements against Defendant were admissible because the evidence “stemmed from reasonably foreseeable buys and aided in proving the extent of the conspiracy.” The court also found that evidence of the controlled buy was admissible under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b). Finally, the court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support Defendant’s conviction and that the district court did not commit any error when calculating Defendant’s sentence. View "United States v. Travis Ferguson" on Justia Law

After a civilian reported a vehicle traveling the wrong way on the highway, a state trooper located Defendant driving a vehicle matching the description. The trooper, who had a K9 unit with him, initiated a traffic stop after noticing the vehicle’s tint appeared to violate state law. During the stop, the trooper discovered the defendant’s driver’s license was suspended. While the trooper was waiting for backup, he asked Defendant to consent to a K9 search of the vehicle. The defendant declined; however, relying on highway patrol protocol, the trooper proceeded with the K9 search. The K9 unit indicated the presence of narcotics, prompting the trooper to search the vehicle, where he discovered cocaine, methamphetamine and a firearm. A subsequent inventory search of the vehicle revealed two additional handguns and a small amount of methamphetamine. Several days later, the trooper performed a second inventory search, locating 459 grams of methamphetamine.The district court denied Defendant’s motion to suppress based on the prolonged nature of the initial traffic stop and various departures from highway patrol policy in conducting the inventory search.The Eighth Circuit affirmed, finding the traffic stop was not impermissibly extended due to the discovery of narcotics and a firearm. The court also held that the trooper substantially complied with departmental policy in conducting the inventory searches. Finally, the court rejected Defendant’s claim that the district court erred in denying his motion for a mistrial based on claims the prosecutor violated the prohibition against mentioning the defendant’s failure to testify. View "United States v. Jose Perez" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for attempted enticement of a minor and interstate travel with intent to engage in illicit sexual conduct. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's convictions. The court also concluded that there was no error in the district court's application of a two-level sentencing enhancement under USSG 2G1.3(b)(2)(B) for unduly influencing a minor to engage in prohibited sexual conduct and under USSG 3C1.1 for obstruction of justice. Finally, the court concluded that defendant's within-guidelines sentence was not substantively unreasonable; there was no error in requiring defendant to submit to polygraph tests; the award of restitution was proper under the Abolish Human Trafficking Act; and there was no abuse of discretion in determining the amount of restitution. View "United States v. Kempter" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's revocation of supervised release and imposition of a three year prison sentence. The court concluded that the district court did not impermissibly lengthened defendant's sentence so he could participate in a sex offender treatment program, in violation of Tapia v. United States, 564 U.S. 319, 335 (2011). In this case, the district court based its sentencing decision on the danger defendant posed to children in the community and the fact that his continued violations showed he was not amenable to supervision. Finally, the court concluded that defendant's sentence was not substantively unreasonable where the district court considered the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) sentencing factors and did not err in imposing the statutory maximum. View "United States v. Smith" on Justia Law

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