United States of America v. Ramien Collins, also known as Rambo

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 22-3120
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Ramien Collins, also known as Rambo
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Central
____________
Submitted: March 15, 2024
Filed: July 16, 2024
[Unpublished]
____________
Before KELLY, ERICKSON, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Ramien Collins appeals the judgment entered by the district court1 after a jury
found him guilty of selling methamphetamine. His counsel requested leave to
1The Honorable James M. Moody Jr., United States District Judge for the
Eastern District of Arkansas.

-- 1 of 3 --

withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
discussing whether the evidence was sufficient to support his conviction and whether
evidence of his prior conviction was properly admitted. We previously granted
counsel’s motion to withdraw and granted Collins permission to file a pro se
supplemental brief. Collins instead filed a motion for appointment of new counsel.
We denied the motion and granted Collins another opportunity to file a pro se
supplemental brief. Collins has filed a brief arguing that the district court erred in
admitting a forensic chemist’s lab report on the drugs Collins sold during controlled
purchases and that his right to assistance of counsel was violated because we denied
his request for appointment of a new attorney on appeal.
Upon careful review, we conclude that there was sufficient evidence to support
Collins’s conviction. See United States v. Johnson, 688 F.3d 494, 502 (8th Cir. 2012)
(evidence supporting conviction is sufficient if any rational trier of fact could have
found essential elements of crime beyond reasonable doubt). We also conclude that
Collins’s prior conviction was admissible, as it was relevant to prove his knowledge
and intent. See United States v. Ellis, 817 F.3d 570, 579 (8th Cir. 2016) (evidence of
prior conviction is admissible to show motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan,
knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident). Further, Collins’s
challenge to the admission of the lab report fails because he stipulated to its
admission at trial. See United States v. Robinson, 617 F.3d 984, 989 (8th Cir. 2010);
United States v. Smith, 632 F.3d 1043, 1047 (8th Cir. 2011).
As to Collins’s argument that we should appoint another attorney on appeal,
we have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio. See 488 U.S. 75
(1988). We have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal and, despite the
shortcomings in counsel’s briefs, no need for further briefing by another attorney. See
United States v. Coleman, 575 F.3d 316, 321 (3d Cir. 2009) (even if Anders brief is
insufficient, when appeal is patently frivolous court is not required to appoint new
counsel); cf. United States v. Cline, 27 F.4th 613, 619 (8th Cir. 2022) (“In view of
-2-

-- 2 of 3 --

later decisions elaborating on Anders, constitutional requirements can be satisfied if
counsel informs the court about potential avenues for appeal that were considered by
counsel but ultimately deemed frivolous.” (citing McCoy v. Ct. of Appeals of Wis.,
Dist. 1, 486 U.S. 429, 430-31 & n.1 (1988))). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.
______________________________
-3-

-- 3 of 3 --