Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellee v. Clarence C. GARRETSON Defendant-Appellant
[Unpublished]
In this direct criminal appeal, Clarence Garretson challenges the sentence the district court 1 imposed following his guilty plea to transporting minors in interstate commerce with the intent to engage in criminal sexual activity. His counsel has moved to withdraw and submitted a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), discussing the reasonableness of the sentence. Garretson has filed a pro se supplemental brief, in which he argues that the district court did not properly consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors; and that the statute of conviction provides for a sentence that is “grossly disproportionate” to the offense, and is overly broad.
As to the reasonableness of the sentence, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion, as it properly considered the section 3553(a) factors; there was no indication that it overlooked a relevant factor, or committed a clear error of judgment in weighing relevant factors, see United States v. David, 682 F.3d 1074, 1077 (8th Cir. 2012) (standard of review); United States v. Wohlman, 651 F.3d 878, 887 (8th Cir. 2011); and the sentence was within the Guidelines range, see United States v. Callaway, 762 F.3d 754, 760 (8th Cir. 2014).
As to Garretson’s pro se arguments, we conclude that a life sentence is not grossly disproportionate to the crimes, given the number of victims, the severity of the abuse, and the span of time over which the abuse occurred, see United States v. Scott, 610 F.3d 1009, 1017 (8th Cir. 2010) (standard of review); and that the statute is not overly broad, see United States v. Billiot, 785 F.3d 1266, 1269 (8th Cir. 2015) (standard of review).
We have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and affirm.
FOOTNOTES
1. The Honorable P.K. Holmes, III, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas.
PER CURIAM.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 17-2316
Decided: January 23, 2018
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)