United States v. Cutler, No. 22-3589 (8th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this Case
In this case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas's decision to sentence Jordan Cutler to 180 months in prison for distributing child pornography, a sentence that exceeded the Guidelines range of 108 to 135 months. Cutler appealed, arguing that the district court made a procedural error in calculating the Guidelines range and asserting that his sentence was substantively unreasonable. Cutler claimed that the district court erred in assessing one criminal history point under the Sentencing Guidelines for a set of uncounseled misdemeanors from 2010.
The appellate court rejected this argument, explaining that Cutler's uncounseled misdemeanors were not voided by his lack of counsel, as the fines associated with these misdemeanors were constitutionally valid and could be used to enhance his punishment. The court clarified that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel for misdemeanor defendants only applies where the defendant receives a prison sentence, not when the defendant is merely fined.
In terms of the substantive reasonableness of Cutler's sentence, the appellate court again affirmed the district court's decision. The court explained that although the Guidelines captured certain aspects of Cutler's offense, they did not reflect the "heinous" nature of his crimes, including threats to kidnap, rape, torture, and kill young girls. Cutler also argued that the district court improperly considered its reputation and public perception when determining his sentence. However, the appellate court disagreed, noting that the district court was considering the need for the sentence to reflect the seriousness of the offense, promote respect for the law, and provide just punishment for the offense.
Therefore, the appellate court found no procedural or substantive error in Cutler's sentencing and affirmed the district court's judgment.
Court Description: [Kobes, Author, with Colloton and Grasz, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. The district court did not err in assessing one-criminal point under Guidelines Sec. 4A1.1(c) for a set of uncounseled misdemeanor convictions as under this court's precedent, the deprivation invalidates only a defendant's suspended prison sentence but not the associated fines; uncounseled misdemeanor convictions with fines are valid when used to enhance punishment at a subsequent conviction, and it was not error to impose the point; defendant's above-guidelines sentence 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.