United States v. Well, No. 10-2230 (8th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this CaseDefendant was convicted of conspiring to manufacture methamphetamine and sentenced to a mandatory-minimum term of life imprisonment. Defendant appealed his conviction, contending that the government presented insufficient evidence of his entry into an actual agreement with others to manufacture methamphetamine; the district court committed plain error by admitting certain evidence; and his trial lawyer rendered ineffective assistance of counsel. The court held that sufficient evidence supported defendant's conviction where the record supported the jury's finding that he entered into an agreement with at least one other person to manufacture methamphetamine. The court also held that defendant had not shown that any of the evidentiary errors affected his substantial rights or the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the proceedings and therefore, the district court did not plainly err in admitting the evidence. The court declined to review defendant's ineffective assistance claims where no record had been developed because defendant did not ask the district court to hold an evidentiary hearing on his trial counsel's alleged ineffectiveness. Accordingly, the judgment was affirmed.
Court Description: Criminal case - Criminal law. Evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conviction for conspiring to manufacture methamphetamine; evidentiary challenges rejected; claims of ineffective assistance would not be reviewed as the record regarding the issues has not been developed.
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.