United States v. Grimes, No. 11-3702 (8th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff appealed his conviction and sentence for 19 counts based on stalking and his use of the mails and telephone for threatening and harassing communications. Because the court concluded that "the court in which such charge is pending" was solely the District of South Dakota, the relevant period for the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. 3161(c)(1), purposes did not begin to accrue until defendant first appeared there. Consequently, only 66 days elapsed before his trial commenced and therefore, the court could not conclude that the district court erred in rejecting his motion to dismiss under the Act. As for defendant's claims of multiplicity, the court directed the district court to vacate convictions as to Counts 13-17, including the special assessments, and affirmed the remaining convictions and sentence.
Court Description: Criminal case - Criminal law and Sentencing. For Speedy Trial Act purposes, the district in which the charge was pending was solely the District of South Dakota, and the relevant period for purposes of the Act began to accrue when defendant appeared there and not when he made an initial appearance in West Virginia; count charging violation of 47 U.S.C. Sec. 223(a)(1)(D) governing repeated or continuous telephone calls was not multiplicitous with the counts charging violation of 47 U.S.C. Sec. 223(a)(1)(E) dealing with harassing communications; however, the subsection E offenses charged in Counts 12-17 were multiplicitous, and the district court is directed to vacate the convictions on Counts 13-17; district court did not err in determining defendant was a career offender under Guidelines Sec. 4B1.1; defendant presented information about his military service and mental health, and the court would presume the district court considered the information in determining sentence; sentence was not substantively unreasonable as a variance in light of the 3553(a) factors.
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.