United States v. Rupp, No. 19-3190 (8th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for charges stemming from his involvement in an armed robbery of a store. The court concluded that the district court committed prejudicial error in denying his motion to dismiss a 18 U.S.C. 924(c) firearm charge the government had dropped in the second superseding indictment, a motion that was pending when defendant pleaded guilty to that charge in the fourth superseding indictment. The court explained that, proceeding by a superseding indictment that eliminates charges, rather than by requesting leave of court for Fed. R. Crim. P. 48(a) dismissal of those charges, in not, without more, prosecutorial misconduct.
The court also concluded that defendant's allegation that the government circumvented Rule 48(a) to induce his plea to Hobbs Act robbery is unsupported by the record. Finally, the court agreed with the district court that defendant failed to demonstrate prejudice because he chose to plead guilty to Hobbs Act robbery knowing the government might reinstate the firearm charges omitted from the second superseding indictment.
Court Description: [Loken, Author, with Smith, Chief Judge, and Wollman, Circuit Judge] Criminal case - Criminal law. The district court did not commit prejudicial error when it denied defendant's motion to dismiss a Section 924(c) firearm charge the government had dropped in the second superseding indictment, a motion that was pending when defendant pleaded guilty to that charge in the fourth superseding indictment; proceeding by a superseding indictment that eliminates charges, rather than by requesting leave of court for Fed. R. Crim. P. 48(a) dismissal of those charges, in not, without more, prosecutorial misconduct; defendant's allegation that the government circumvented Rule 48(a) to induce his plea to Hobbs Act robbery is not supported by the record; defendant failed to demonstrate prejudice as he knew when he pleaded guilty to the Hobbs Act robbery that the government might reinstate the firearms charges omitted from the second superseding indictment and when the third superseding indictment including the firearms charge was filed, he did not move to withdraw his plea.
This opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on April 16, 2021.
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.