United States of America v. Rodney D. Price

23-1329Court of Appeals for the Eighth CircuitNov 30, 2023

Full text

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 23-1358
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Rodney D. Price
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis
____________
Submitted: October 27, 2023
Filed: November 1, 2023
[Unpublished]
____________
Before LOKEN, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Rodney Price appeals after a jury convicted him of child pornography offenses
and the district court1 sentenced him to 84 months in prison. His counsel has moved
1The Honorable Audrey G. Fleissig, United States District Judge for the
Eastern District of Missouri.

-- 1 of 2 --

for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967), challenging a pretrial evidentiary ruling. Price has filed a pro se brief
additionally challenging the sufficiency of the evidence and arguing that counsel was
ineffective.
Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not err by refusing
to admit evidence of an alternative perpetrator, as the evidence was speculative and
remote. See United States v. Emmert, 825 F.3d 906, 909 (8th Cir. 2016) (standard
of review); United States v. Thibeaux, 784 F.3d 1221, 1226 (8th Cir. 2015).
As to the arguments in Price’s pro se brief, we conclude that there was
sufficient evidence to support his conviction. See United States v. Timlick, 481 F.3d
1080, 1082 (8th Cir. 2007) (standard of review); United States v. Spears, 454 F.3d
830, 832 (8th Cir. 2006). We decline to address his ineffective-assistance claim in
this direct appeal. See United States v. Hernandez, 281 F.3d 746, 749 (8th Cir. 2002).
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
affirm the judgment, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
______________________________
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --

Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude

Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.