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. Virgil LEFT HAND, Sr. Defendant - Appellant
[Unpublished]
Virgil Left Hand, Sr. appeals the district court’s 1 judgment entered upon a jury verdict finding him guilty of federal assault offenses. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, and suggesting the district court erred in denying Left Hand a Guidelines reduction for acceptance of responsibility.
We first conclude that the evidence at trial was sufficient to support Left Hand’s convictions. See United States v. Birdine, 515 F.3d 842, 844 (8th Cir. 2008) (sufficiency of evidence to support conviction is reviewed de novo, viewing evidence in light most favorable to jury verdict, and giving verdict benefit of all reasonable inferences; this court will not second-guess jury’s credibility determinations, and will reverse only if no reasonable jury could have found defendant guilty beyond reasonable doubt). We further conclude that the district court did not clearly err in denying Left Hand’s request for an acceptance-of-responsibility reduction. Although Left Hand conceded he struck the victim, he still challenged an essential element of one of his offenses by introducing evidence at trial that another person may have caused his victim’s injuries through other actions. See USSG § 3E1.1, cmt. (n.2) (reduction for acceptance of responsibility is not intended to apply to defendant who puts government to proof at trial by denying essential factual elements of guilt, is convicted, and only then admits guilt and expresses remorse); United States v. Ervasti, 201 F.3d 1029, 1043 (8th Cir. 2000) (standard of review).
Finally, we have reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion, and affirm.
FOOTNOTES
1. The Honorable Jeffrey L. Viken, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of South Dakota.
PER CURIAM.
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. 19-1119
Decided: December 06, 2019
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)