United States v. Phillip Running, No. 11-1544 (8th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal case - criminal law. Anders case. While defendant committed the offense when he was 14, he was an adult when he was indicted, and he could not invoke the provisions of the Juvenile Delinquency Act.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 11-1544 ___________ United States of America, Appellee, v. Phillip C. Running, Appellant. * * * * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the * District of South Dakota. * * [UNPUBLISHED] * ___________ Submitted: September 6, 2011 Filed: September 29, 2011 ___________ Before WOLLMAN, SMITH, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Phillip Running appeals the district court s1 judgment entered after a jury found him guilty of producing child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a). Running s counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the trial court lacked jurisdiction because Running was a juvenile at the time of the offense and was not prosecuted until he was an adult. 1 The Honorable Roberto A. Lange, United States District Judge for the District of South Dakota. The Juvenile Delinquency Act (JDA) provides that a federal court does not have jurisdiction over [a] juvenile alleged to have committed an act of juvenile delinquency. See 18 U.S.C. § 5032. A juvenile is defined as a person under 18 or, for the purpose of proceedings and disposition under the JDA for an act of juvenile delinquency, a person under 21. See 18 U.S.C. § 5031. This court has held that a defendant may not invoke the JDA if he is 21 or older when he is indicted. See United States v. Wright, 540 F.3d 833, 838-39 (8th Cir. 2008). Although Running was 14 years old when he committed the offense, he was 23 years old when he was indicted, and thus Wright precludes him from invoking the JDA. Running urges us to consider the history of the JDA, but this panel is unable to overrule the prior holding. See United States v. Lovelace, 565 F.3d 1080, 1085 (8th Cir. 2009). After reviewing the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed, and counsel is granted leave to withdraw. ______________________________ -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
