United States v. Olivares, No. 15-2239 (8th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseDefendant was convicted of conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance; possession of a firearm during a drug trafficking crime; being a felon in possession of a firearm; being a fugitive in possession of a firearm; possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance; and distribution of a controlled substance. The court rejected defendant's argument that the district court erred in denying him access to discovery and the government improperly selectively preserved evidence by saving only inculpatory material; the district court carefully protected defendant's right to access adequate resources to prepare his own defense; the court rejected defendant's argument under Arizona v. Youngblood because he raised it for the first time on appeal and he failed to present any evidence of bad faith; there was no abuse of discretion in the district court not ordering another competency evaluation or holding another competency hearing when defendant sought to represent himself at trial; the district court did not violate defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel by permitting him to proceed pro se at trial; under the plain language of the relevant statute the information was timely filed; without any evidence to support the allegation, the court is unwilling to attribute bad faith to the government in its decision regarding when to file the notice; and, to the extent defendant argues that he was incompetent prior to January 4, 2012, he presented no evidence to support such a finding. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Kelly, Author, with Riley, Chief Judge, and Colloton, Circuit Judge] Criminal case - Criminal law and sentencing. Claims that the district court denied defendant access to discovery and that the government improperly selectively preserved evidence by saving only inculpatory materials rejected; the district court carefully protected defendant's right to access adequate resources, including discovery files, exhibits and the Internet, to prepare his own defense; defendant failed to preserve his Youngblood argument concerning preservation of materials by failing to raise the issue in the district court and by failing to present any evidence of bad faith; the district court did not err by failing to sua sponte order a reevaluation of defendant's competency to proceed as there was no discernible difference in defendant's behavior or mental state between the court's finding of competency and the start of the trial eight months later; the court did not abuse its discretion by not ordering another competency evaluation or hearing when defendant sought to represent himself at trial and did not violate his Sixth Amendment by permitting him to proceed pro se with standby counsel; Section 851 notice was timely and there was no evidence that the government acted in bad faith with respect to its decision as to when the file the notice; there was no evidence defendant was incompetent during the five-year period for challenging the convictions used to support the Section 851 notice.
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.