United States v. Luscombe, No. 18-3355 (8th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for three counts of wire fraud, two counts of mail fraud, and one count of money laundering. The court held that the district court did not err in failing to sua sponte revoke defendant's right to self-representation on the first day of trial or to hold a competency hearing, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to grant a new trial on that basis.
The court also held that the district court did not err by terminating defendant's self-representation during the third day of trial and in directing standby counsel to take over his defense. In this case, the totality of defendant's behavior supported the district court's decision to terminate defendant's self-representation. Finally, the court held that the district court adequately explained the basis for the upward variance in light of the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors; defendant's sentence was not substantively unreasonable; and the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing defendant.
Court Description: [Shepherd, Author, with Grasz and Kobes, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law and sentencing. Whether this court applied a de novo or a plain error standard of review, the district court did not err in waiting until the third day of trial to terminate defendant's self-representation; defendant made a valid and knowing waiver of his right to counsel and his conduct during the first three days of trial, while sometimes obstructionist and ineffective, did not suggest that he was not competent to waive counsel; nor did the court err in failing to sua sponte order a competency hearing; the district court did not err in terminating defendant's self-representation on the third day of trial and directing standby counsel to take over the defense as defendant's conduct was more than just poor lawyering and had crossed over into seriously obstructive conduct that interrupted the trial process; the district court adequately explained its basis for an upward variance, and the 3553(a) factors it relied on supported the variance; district court may vary upwards on factors already accounted for by the guidelines; fact that the government did not seek an upward variance did not make the sentence substantively unreasonable; sentence was not substantively unreasonable or an abuse of the district court's discretion.
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.