United States v. Carrillo, No. 19-2247 (8th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this CaseThe Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's 190 month sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to two drug counts, one for conspiracy and another for possession. The court held that the district court did not err in rejecting defendant's contention that his prosecutions in South Dakota and Iowa violated double jeopardy. The court explained that when defendant pleaded guilty in the Iowa case, he had not yet pleaded guilty in the South Dakota case. Therefore, jeopardy had not attached. Under this unusual scenario, the court stated that defendant should have filed the motion to dismiss in South Dakota, after he pleaded guilty in Iowa. Accordingly, the district court could not have erred when it refused to dismiss the Iowa conspiracy charge. The court also held that defendant's sentence is not substantively unreasonable where the district court did not abuse its discretion by not varying downward.
Court Description: [Stras, Author, with Kelly and Wollman, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law and sentencing. The district court did not err in rejecting defendant's argument that his prosecutions in South Dakota and Iowa violated double jeopardy because when defendant pleaded guilty in this Iowa case, he had not yet pleaded guilty in the South Dakota case and jeopardy had not attached in that case; under this unusual scenario defendant should have filed a motion to dismiss the South Dakota charge after he pleaded guilty in Iowa; as a result, the district court could not have erred when it refused to dismiss the Iowa conspiracy charge; defendant's sentence, a downward variance, was not substantively unreasonable.
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.