United States v. Flores-Lagonas, No. 19-3108 (8th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition. The court concluded that the district court did not err by denying defendant's motion to suppress the guns and ammunition where officers had probable cause to believe defendant was engaged in criminal activity and their subsequent arrest and search of defendant's vehicle did not violate his Fourth Amendment rights.
The court also concluded that the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to dismiss because defendant's police perjury claims fail under either an abuse of discretion or a de novo standard. The court weighed the Barker factors to determine whether defendant's Sixth Amendment right to speedy trial had been violated and concluded that the factors weigh in favor of the government. In this case, defendant caused most of the delay, nearly half of which was due to his competency proceedings. Furthermore, defendant cannot rely on presumptive prejudice alone and has failed to show actual or specific prejudice. Finally, after excluding all times permitted by the Speedy Trial Act, the court concluded that seventy days had not run at the time defendant pleaded guilty.
Court Description: [Chief Judge Smith, Author, with Loken and Gruender, Circuit Judges] Criminal Case - conviction and sentence. After pleading guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition, Flores-Lagonas appeals denial of motion to suppress, motion to dismiss indictment for alleged police perjury and Sixth Amendment and Speedy Trial Act violations. During a controlled delivery of methamphetamine, Flores-Lagonas fled and a chase ensued; he was apprehended and two loaded handgun magazines seized from his person and a gun from the vehicle. Four years later he pleaded guilty. Motion to suppress was denied, as even in absence of reasonable suspicion for initial stop, officers had probable cause to arrest. After lengthy proceedings, including multiple competency proceedings, the district court concluded no Speedy Trial Act or Sixth Amendment violation. Officers did not seize Flores-Lagonas in his vehicle because he did not submit to show of authority, but officers had probable cause to arrest him for fleeing, failing to stop, and reckless driving. Thus the arrest and subsequent search did not violate the Fourth Amendment. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying reconsideration based on allegation of police perjury and no convincing evidence of perjury was presented. As for Speedy trial claims, four year delay is presumptively prejudicial, but the defense cause most of the delay and the government's delays were not in effort to hamper the defense and was reasonably justified; assertions of prejudice lacked specific facts. Excluding times permitted by law, the Speedy Trial Act was not violated.
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.