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

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of habeas relief to petitioner in an action where petitioner was found guilty of two first-degree murder counts. Although the Missouri Court of Appeals' conclusion that petitioner's counsel performed effectively relied on unreasonable determinations of fact, petitioner failed to show how the error was prejudicial. In this case, the trial court's ruling to deny severance was reasonable and did not amount to an abuse of discretion. Furthermore, even if petitioner could show a substantial probability of severance on appeal, he cannot show an overall reasonable probability of a different outcome in the case. In this case, the evidence against petitioner was convincingly incriminating on both murders and he has not met his burden of showing a reasonable probability of a different outcome in either case even if there was a severance of the cases. View "Donelson v. Steele" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm after he brandished a stolen rifle in a stranger's backyard. The court concluded that, even if justification can serve as a defense to a felon-in-possession charge, the facts in this case do not support a justification for possessing the rifle at issue. The court reversed defendant's sentence and remanded for resentencing where the government concedes that defendant's Texas conviction for aggravated-assault did not qualify as a violent felony for purposes of the Armed Career Criminal Act. View "United States v. Hoxworth" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's involuntary medication order under Sell v. United States, 539 U.S. 166 (2003), to maintain defendant's competency for trial. Given that the purpose of involuntary medication under Sell is to ensure the defendant is competent enough to participate in trial, the court concluded that adopting a rule that categorically prohibits the involuntary medication of a defendant who has regained competency for some period of time, but who is unable to maintain it, would frustrate that purpose where an important governmental interest is at stake. In this case, the district court did not err in concluding that it had the authority to order the involuntary medication of defendant for the purpose of rendering and maintaining his competency for trial. Furthermore, the district court's finding that involuntary medication is necessary to achieve the government's interests was not clearly erroneous. The court explained that the district court's order is narrowly and carefully tailored to minimize the intrusion on defendant's protected liberty interests. View "United States v. Mitchell" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's revocation of defendant's supervised release and imposition of a 24 month sentence. To the extent the district court considered a deputy marshal's hearsay statements in deciding an appropriate sentence, there was no error. The court explained that the confrontation right recognized in United States v. Bell, 785 F.2d 640 (8th Cir. 1986), is limited to the question whether release should be revoked; this question was answered by defendant's possession of a controlled substance; and due process generally does not require confrontation during sentencing following a conviction and due process does not require any greater protection in the sentencing phase of a revocation proceeding. In this case, other admissible evidence supported the findings that defendant violated the provisions of his supervised release. View "United States v. Busey" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's convictions for unlawful possession of a firearm and possession of methamphetamine. The court concluded that the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained during a traffic stop where the record supports the district court's conclusion that defendant consented to the search within the average time for a routine traffic stop and that police obtained consent to search within the time reasonably required to complete the mission of the traffic stop. Furthermore, once police lawfully secured consent to search, any delay occasioned by the search did not constitute an unlawful extension of the seizure. The court is not convinced that the constitutional requirement of reasonableness mandates that police use only computer-generated warning tickets, and there is no showing in any event that using a computer would have produced the warning within thirty-seven seconds before defendant consented to the search. The court explained that, once defendant gave consent to search, it did not matter what method was used to generate the warning ticket, because defendant necessarily consented to an extension of the traffic stop while the search was conducted.The court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in applying a sentencing enhancement under USSG 2K2.1(b)(6) where it did not amount to impermissible double counting. In any event, the court concluded that the district court varied downward to offset the increase, leaving defendant no basis to complain. View "United States v. Salkil" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's 420-month sentence, following two remands for resentencing, for multiple drug and firearm counts. The court concluded that the district court did not clearly err in determining that defendant was responsible for a drug equivalency of 1,000 to 3,000 kilograms of marijuana, resulting in a base offense level of 30 pursuant to USSG 2D1.1(c)(5); in finding that defendant maintained a premises for manufacturing and distributing a controlled substance ("stash house") under USSG 2D1.1(b)(12); and in finding that defendant committed the offenses as part of a pattern of criminal conduct engaged in as a livelihood under USSG 2D1.1(b)(14)(E) (2014). View "United States v. McArthur" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion for a sentence reduction under the First Step Act. The court has clarified that, while the district court may consider the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors in exercising its First Step Act discretion, the Act does not require it to do so. The court concluded that the district court did not err in considering the impact on the Act of defendant's guidelines range. In this case, the entire sentencing record, including the prior motions for sentence reduction under guidelines amendments, supports the finding that defendant was responsible for 5.268 kilograms of crack cocaine and therefore the bottom of the amended range under the Act would remain 360 months. Finally, the court concluded that there was no error in failing to consider defendant's request for compassionate release where he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. View "United States v. Milton" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress geolocation data from his cell phone and his Google email account. The court concluded that officers were entitled to rely on the magistrate's nexus finding, and thus the Leon good faith exception applies to the warrants. The court also rejected defendant's contention that his trial was spoiled by the cumulative effect of a few evidentiary rulings. The court explained that, even if all of this evidence was excluded, the core facts supporting the verdict remain. View "United States v. Barnes" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of defendant's motion for a sentence reduction under the First Step Act of 2018, concluding that the district court erred in determining that defendant remains subject to a mandatory life sentence. The court explained that defendant's offense of conviction—not the underlying drug quantity—determines his applicable statutory sentencing range. In this case, the district court erred in determining that defendant remained subject to a mandatory life sentence based on defendant's conduct rather than the offense of conviction, and the district court erroneously concluded that relief was categorically unavailable because of the drug quantity. The court remanded for the district court to determine whether to exercise its discretion in imposing a reduced sentence. View "United States v. Robinson" on Justia Law

Petitioner filed a habeas action alleging that he received ineffective assistance of sentencing counsel when his lawyer failed to investigate potential impeachment evidence of his own expert witness, and that his death sentence was unconstitutional due to flaws in the jury instructions. The district court agreed and vacated petitioner's death sentence.The Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's judgment vacating petitioner's death sentence, concluding that counsel was not deficient by reasonably relying on the professional community to vet an expert. Furthermore, petitioner cannot show that, under the circumstances, no competent lawyer could have made the choice to trust the legal community's appraisal of the witness. Even if further investigation was more prudent, it is not clear that the investigation should have covered the witness's falsified lab reports. Therefore, petitioner did not overcome the presumption that counsel performed reasonably by not investigating the witness's credentials.The court also concluded that there was no substantial likelihood that the calling of an alternative psychiatric witness would have led to a different result; the state habeas court did not err in finding that petitioner was not prejudiced by sentencing counsel's failure to call a psychiatrist, and post-conviction counsel was not ineffective by failing to raise the issue; and the district court erred in concluding that the sentencing instructions violated Mills v. Maryland, 486 U.S. 367 (1988), and that Missouri's capital sentencing system violates Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002). View "McLaughlin v. Precythe" on Justia Law