United States v. James Crippen, No. 16-3735 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Loken, Arnold and Murphy, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law. Anders case. Defendant's guilty plea foreclosed review of his challenge to the district court's denial of his motion to suppress.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 16-3735 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. James Allen Crippen lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Joplin ____________ Submitted: June 26, 2017 Filed: June 30, 2017 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, ARNOLD, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. After the district court1 denied his motion to suppress evidence, James Allen Crippen pleaded guilty to child-pornography offenses and was sentenced below the 1 The Honorable M. Douglas Harpool, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. advisory Guidelines range. On appeal, Crippen’s counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the denial of the suppression motion. Crippen’s unconditional guilty plea, however, forecloses our review of the suppression ruling. See United States v. Christenson, 653 F.3d 697, 699 (8th Cir. 2011). Further, having independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court, and we grant counsel’s motion 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.
