United States v. Bernard Mims, No. 19-1568 (8th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Gruender, Benton and Stras, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law. Anders case. The district court did not clearly err in finding that defendant was competent to plead guilty; nor did the court abuse its discretion in declining to order a competency evaluation or hearing.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 19-1568 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Bernard Brandon Mims, also known as Lil B lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota ____________ Submitted: October 24, 2019 Filed: October 29, 2019 [Unpublished] ____________ Before GRUENDER, BENTON, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Bernard Brandon Mims pleaded guilty to a drug-conspiracy offense, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A) and 846, and the district court 1 imposed the 1 The Honorable Susan Richard Nelson, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota. statutory-minimum sentence of 120 months in prison. In an Anders brief, Mims’s counsel raises his client’s competency at the plea-entry stage as an issue for us to review on appeal and requests permission to withdraw. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). We conclude that the district court did not clearly err when it found that Mims was competent to plead guilty. See United States v. Martinez, 446 F.3d 878, 881 (8th Cir. 2006) (applying the clear-error standard of review and explaining that a defendant is competent to plead guilty if he or she has “a reasonable degree of rational understanding” when consulting with counsel and has “a rational [and] factual understanding of the proceedings”); United States v. Denton, 434 F.3d 1104, 1112–13 (8th Cir. 2006) (affording “significant weight” to defense counsel’s opinion about defendant’s competency). Nor did the court abuse its discretion in declining to order a competency evaluation or hearing. See United States v. Washington, 596 F.3d 926, 941 (8th Cir. 2010) (concluding that no further inquiry was necessary when the parties never raised doubts about the defendant’s competency and the court found that the defendant was competent after having had a chance to observe him). We have also independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and conclude that there are no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment and grant counsel permission 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.
