United States v. Carl Edwards, No. 20-1237 (8th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: [Per Curiam - Before Erickson, Wollman and Stras, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law. Anders case. The district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress; Rehaif argument rejected; claim of ineffective assistance would not be considered in this direct appeal.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 20-1237 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Carl D. Edwards lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City ____________ Submitted: November 24, 2020 Filed: December 4, 2020 [Unpublished] ____________ Before ERICKSON, WOLLMAN, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Carl Edwards received a 110-month sentence after the district court1 convicted him of being a felon in possession of a firearm. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2). In an Anders brief, Edwards’s counsel requests 1 The Honorable Stephen R. Bough, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. permission to withdraw and raises the denial of a motion to suppress as an issue for our review. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Edwards has also filed a pro se brief and moved for leave to file a supplemental brief. We affirm. We conclude that there was no reason to suppress any evidence because Edwards was brought before a magistrate “without unnecessary delay.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 5(a)(1)(A). Nor is Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019), of any help to him, because there was evidence that he knew at the time he committed the crime that he was a convicted felon. See United States v. Davies, 942 F.3d 871, 873 (8th Cir. 2019) (applying plain-error review); see also United States v. Hollingshed, 940 F.3d 410, 415–16 (8th Cir 2019) (concluding under similar circumstances that the plain-error standard was not satisfied). Finally, we decline to consider the ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim now. See United States v. Ramirez-Hernandez, 449 F.3d 824, 826–27 (8th Cir. 2006) (explaining that this type of claim is “usually best litigated in collateral proceedings”). We have also independently reviewed the record and conclude that no other non-frivolous issues exist. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988). We accordingly affirm the judgment, grant the motion to file a supplemental brief, and grant 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.
