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

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress after he was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm. In regard to the first warrant that authorized police to search for guns, items tending to show possession of guns, and electronic storage devices which would tend to store or send information relating to illegal drug trafficking, the court concluded that an objectively reasonable officer could have believed that the warrant permitted him to search for evidence of illegal gun possession, including defendant's cell phone. Therefore, the video found on the cell phone was admissible under the good faith doctrine. The court also concluded that there was a substantial basis to find that probable cause existed to seize defendant's phone and, even if there were not, the court would nonetheless conclude that the good faith exception applied. View "United States v. Eggerson" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment in a case where defendant conditionally pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit money laundering. The court concluded that the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment for lack of venue or to transfer venue to another judicial district. The court explained that, taking the allegations in the indictment as true, there was venue in the Eastern District of Missouri to try the allegation that defendant conspired to commit money laundering in "the Eastern District of Missouri" and elsewhere. The court also rejected defendant's contention that the district court should have transferred venue to the Central District of California. In this case, the district court correctly observed that the investigation into the drug proceeds was conducted in St. Louis, the relevant documents were in St. Louis, witness expenses for defendant's defense would be paid by the government, and defendant's counsel was in St. Louis. View "United States v. Hardaway" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's request to take back his guilty plea to bank robbery. The court concluded that, by failing to object to his first attorney's performance during the plea hearing, defendant foreclosed using the ineffective-assistance-of-counsel route to plea-withdrawal.The court concluded that defendant's 210-month sentence was substantively reasonable where the district court weighed the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) sentencing factors, including defendant's mitigating factors, and provided a reasonable basis for its sentence. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing defendant. View "United States v. Sisk" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for conspiracy to distribute 500 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing methamphetamine, and several firearm offenses. Defendant, a Native American, claimed that he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to a cross section of the community because he had no Native Americans on his jury.Even assuming Native Americans are underrepresented in the Central Division's jury pool, as the district court suggests they may be, the court concluded that defendant has not shown the underrepresentation "is due to systematic exclusion of the group in the jury-selection process." The court explained that the practice of using voter registration rolls to compile the master jury wheel is expressly permitted under the Jury Selection and Service Act of 1968, which governs the manner for selecting federal jurors. Furthermore, the Sixth Amendment's fair cross section requirement applies only to the composition of the jury pool, not the final composition of the jury.The court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion for a new trial in a different venue. In this case, defendant agreed to the for-cause strikes of Native Americans and did not contest the non-discriminatory reasons the government offered for a peremptory strikes of the remaining Native Americans on the jury panel. Furthermore, defendant did not seek a change of venue on these grounds at jury selection or at any other time during trial. Finally, the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant on the conspiracy count; evidentiary challenges failed; and the district court did not err by denying defendant's motion for a new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence. View "United States v. Erickson" on Justia Law

Petitioner, an Arkansas prisoner under a sentence of death for capital murder, petitioned for habeas corpus in the federal district court. In a previous appeal, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of several claims, but remanded for further proceedings on four claims alleging ineffective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment. The court also remanded for further proceedings on petitioner's claim that he is ineligible for the death penalty, due to intellectual disability, under the Eighth Amendment and the rule of Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002). On remand, the district court rejected the Atkins claim, but granted relief on two of the ineffective-assistance claims and set aside petitioner's sentence. Both parties appealed.The Eighth Circuit reversed the grant of relief based on alleged ineffective assistance of counsel. In this case, petitioner's federal claim that trial counsel failed to obtain a timely psychological evaluation of him was presented in the state postconviction court and defaulted when he declined to appeal on that ground. As such, the procedural default cannot be excused based on alleged ineffectiveness of state postconviction counsel. Likewise, the third claim cannot be excused based on alleged ineffectiveness of state postconviction counsel. The court affirmed the denial of relief under the Eighth Amendment, concluding that the district court considered the Atkins claim under both the DSM-IV-TR and DSM-V criteria, reached the same conclusion based on each, and thus there was no legal error. The court rejected petitioner's remaining challenges to the district court's analysis of his intellectual functioning, including additional indicia of intellectual disability, expert and witness testimony, adaptive strengths and weaknesses, and adaptive functioning deficits. View "Sasser v. Payne" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress evidence seized from her lockbox in an action where she pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance. In this case, the search warrant was for evidence of drug use and distribution. Furthermore, officers saw defendant on the couch, asleep, with a meth pipe next to her. The court concluded that this was enough to give officers particularized suspicion that defendant was connected to the illicit activity that provided the basis for the warrant. The court explained that, while defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the lockbox, officers had probable cause that she was involved in the criminal activity that formed the basis for the warrant. Therefore, defendant's lockbox fell within the scope of the warrant and searching it was lawful. View "United States v. Simmermaker" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for unlawfully distributing methamphetamine and of conspiring to distribute it. The court concluded that, viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, a single conspiracy existed. Furthermore, even if a variance occurred, reversal is warranted only if it infringes on defendant's substantial rights. In this case, defendant raised neither notice nor double-jeopardy concerns, only asserting a spillover of evidence from one conspiracy to another. The court concluded that the evidence of defendant's participation in one conspiracy would have been probative of his intent to participate in the other and was therefore admissible. Furthermore, the jury instructions also reduced any risk of prejudice. The court also concluded that there was no error in admitting statements under the coconspirator exception because they were not in furtherance of the conspiracy, in not separately polling a juror, and in calculating drug quantity. View "United States v. Sims" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of petitioner's motion to recuse the district court judge in petitioner's 28 U.S.C. 2254 motion for habeas relief and denial of his application for a certificate of appealability (COA) on three of his habeas corpus claims. Petitioner was found guilty of first-degree murder for killing an officer and sentenced to death. In this case, petitioner concedes that the judge left the Missouri Supreme Court before his case was briefed, argued, or decided. Furthermore, in reviewing petitioner's habeas petition, the judge never had to review any of his past state court rulings.The court concluded that a knowledgeable, reasonable person would not question the judge's impartiality as he took no part in the consideration of petitioner's state appeal. Furthermore, the judge's prior dissent in an unrelated case while a member of the Missouri Supreme Court did not require his recusal from petitioner's federal habeas case where there was no evidence of pervasive personal bias and prejudice against petitioner. Finally, the court declined to disturb the prior administrative panel's denial of petitioner's application for a COA. View "Johnson v. Steele" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of defendants' pro se motions to reduce their sentences under the First Step Act of 2018. The court explained that Section 404(a) of the First Step Act says that covered offenses are those whose penalties "were modified by section 2 or 3 of the Fair Sentencing Act." Before the Fair Sentencing Act, defendants' crack-cocaine quantity—over 50 grams—triggered a 10-year minimum sentence. It now triggers a 5-year minimum sentence. Therefore, the court concluded that the "statutory penalties for" one object of defendants' multidrug conspiracy offense "were modified" by section 2 of the Fair Sentencing Act. The court further explained that the statutory penalties for a drug-trafficking offense include all the penalties triggered by every drug-quantity element of the offense, not just the highest tier of penalties triggered by any one drug-quantity element. Therefore, defendants are eligible for resentencing under the First Step Act. View "United States v. Spencer" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit dismissed the petition for review of the BIA's order finding petitioner inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2)(C) based on lack of jurisdiction. Under section 1182(a)(2)(C)(i), a non citizen is inadmissible to the United States if "the Attorney General knows or has reason to believe" that the noncitizen is or has been either "an illicit trafficker in any controlled substance," or "a knowing aider, abettor, assister, conspirator, or colluder with others" in such trafficking.The court agreed with the BIA that section 1182(a)(2)(C)'s "reason to believe" language requires a finding of probable cause. In this case, the court concluded that there is substantial evidence in the record to support the BIA's conclusion that there was probable cause to believe petitioner was involved in illicit drug trafficking. Therefore, petitioner is inadmissible under section 1182(a)(2)(C) and thus the court lacked jurisdiction over the petition for review. View "Rojas v. Garland" on Justia Law