United States v. Virgil Left Hand, Sr., No. 19-1119 (8th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Shepherd, Kelly and Erickson, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law and sentencing. Anders case. The evidence was sufficient to support defendant's convictions for federal assault offenses; the district court did not err in denying defendant an acceptance-of-responsibility reduction where he challenged an essential element of one of the offenses. [ December 05, 2019
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 19-1119 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Virgil Left Hand, Sr. lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of South Dakota - Rapid City ____________ Submitted: December 3, 2019 Filed: December 6, 2019 [Unpublished] ____________ Before SHEPHERD, KELLY, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Virgil Left Hand, Sr. appeals the district court’s1 judgment entered upon a jury verdict finding him guilty of federal assault offenses. His counsel has moved for 1 The Honorable Jeffrey L. Viken, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of South Dakota. leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, and suggesting the district court erred in denying Left Hand a Guidelines reduction for acceptance of responsibility. We first conclude that the evidence at trial was sufficient to support Left Hand’s convictions. See United States v. Birdine, 515 F.3d 842, 844 (8th Cir. 2008) (sufficiency of evidence to support conviction is reviewed de novo, viewing evidence in light most favorable to jury verdict, and giving verdict benefit of all reasonable inferences; this court will not second-guess jury’s credibility determinations, and will reverse only if no reasonable jury could have found defendant guilty beyond reasonable doubt). We further conclude that the district court did not clearly err in denying Left Hand’s request for an acceptance-of-responsibility reduction. Although Left Hand conceded he struck the victim, he still challenged an essential element of one of his offenses by introducing evidence at trial that another person may have caused his victim’s injuries through other actions. See USSG § 3E1.1, cmt. (n.2) (reduction for acceptance of responsibility is not intended to apply to defendant who puts government to proof at trial by denying essential factual elements of guilt, is convicted, and only then admits guilt and expresses remorse); United States v. Ervasti, 201 F.3d 1029, 1043 (8th Cir. 2000) (standard of review). Finally, we have reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion, and affirm. ______________________________ -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.
