UNITED STATES v. TILLER (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.2021-01-22No. No. 20-2257

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed Tiller's conviction and sentence and granted counsel's motion to withdraw.

Tevonta Tiller appealed his conviction and sentence for bank robbery and a firearm offense after entering a guilty plea. Tiller's appellate counsel sought to withdraw and filed a brief arguing that the conviction and sentence should be vacated on the grounds of vindictive prosecution. The appellate court rejected this argument, finding that Tiller failed to meet the substantial burden required to demonstrate that prosecutors acted vindictively.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether the government engaged in vindictive prosecution
Whether any non-frivolous issues existed for appeal

Procedural posture

Tiller appealed from his guilty plea conviction and below-Guidelines sentence imposed by the district court.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

[Unpublished]

Tevonta Tiller appeals after he pleaded guilty to bank robbery and a firearm offense, and the district court

sentenced him below the Guidelines range. His counsel has moved 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), arguing that Tillers conviction and sentence should be vacated due to vindictive prosecution.

Upon careful review, we conclude that Tiller did not demonstrate that the government vindictively prosecuted him. See United States v. Williams, 793 F.3d 957, 963-64 (8th Cir. 2015) (defendant bears heavy burden to demonstrate vindictive prosecution); United States v. Chappell, 779 F.3d 872, 880 (8th Cir. 2015) (presumption of regularity supports prosecutorial decisions absent clear, contrary evidence). We have also independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), and we find no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm, and we grant counsels motions to withdraw.

FOOTNOTES

. The Honorable Robert W. Pratt, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa.

PER CURIAM.