Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
- Rechtsrecherche mit Zugriff auf über 1 Million Quellen
- Dokumentenautomatisierung
- Mandatsverwaltung
- Gehostet in der EU und der Schweiz
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
21-1207•United States of America v. Elijah West
21-1207Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit25.09.2024
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 23-3720
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Elijah West
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the District of South Dakota - Western
____________
Submitted: August 30, 2024
Filed: September 5, 2024
[Unpublished]
____________
Before GRUENDER, SHEPHERD, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Elijah West appeals after a jury convicted him of murder and related firearm
offenses and the district court1 sentenced him to life in prison. His counsel has
1The Honorable Roberto Lange, Chief Judge, United States District Court for
the District of South Dakota.
-- 1 of 2 --
moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386
U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that his speedy trial rights were violated.
Upon careful review, we conclude that West waived any argument that his
rights under the Speedy Trial Act were violated by failing to assert those rights prior
to trial. See United States v. Jones, 795 F.3d 791, 798 (8th Cir. 2015). We also
conclude that there was no violation of his Sixth Amendment rights. See United
States v. Thornberg, 676 F.3d 703, 706 (8th Cir. 2012) (error, even one affecting
constitutional right, is forfeited if not timely asserted, and will be reviewed for plain
error); United States v. Summage, 575 F.3d 864, 875-76 (8th Cir. 2009) (Sixth
Amendment right to speedy trial was not violated where government was not primary
cause of delay, defendant did not promptly assert right to speedy trial, and he failed
to establish prejudice).
We have also independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488
U.S. 75 (1988), and we find no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we
grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, deny West’s motion for new counsel, and affirm
the judgment.
______________________________
-2-
-- 2 of 2 --
Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.