527 F. App'x 586
8th Cir.2013Background
- Albert Lambers pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)).
- Presentence report listed three prior felony convictions (1996 Missouri voluntary manslaughter; 1999 Missouri stealing-from-a-person; 2002 federal possession with intent to distribute cocaine base) that the report treated as qualifying under the Armed Career Criminal Act (18 U.S.C. § 924(e)).
- The probation office recommended application of § 924(e) (15-year mandatory minimum); the government moved under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e) for a below-guidelines sentence.
- The district court concluded § 924(e) applied but granted the government’s motion and sentenced Lambers to 84 months imprisonment and 3 years supervised release.
- On appeal counsel filed an Anders brief raising three challenges: that the manslaughter conviction is not a violent felony (due to a sudden-passion mens rea), that the stealing-from-a-person offense is not a violent felony (contrary to Hennecke), and that collateral estoppel barred relitigation because a prior sentencing court did not classify those priors as crimes of violence.
- Lambers filed a pro se brief restating those claims; the court conducted an independent review under Penson/Anders and rejected the arguments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Missouri stealing-from-a-person is a violent felony under § 924(e) | Lambers: it is not a violent felony | Government/District Court: it is a violent felony because it involves conduct presenting serious risk of physical injury | Affirmed: stealing-from-a-person is a violent felony (followed Hennecke) |
| Whether Missouri voluntary manslaughter is a violent felony under § 924(e) | Lambers: manslaughter requires only sudden passion (less than intentional force) so not a violent felony | Government/District Court: statute requires knowingly killing under sudden passion but includes use of physical force against another, qualifying as a violent felony | Affirmed: manslaughter is a violent felony |
| Whether issue preclusion (collateral estoppel) bars relitigation of whether priors are violent felonies | Lambers: prior sentencing court’s omission precludes relitigation | Government/District Court: prior sentencing did not decide the issue, so no preclusion | Affirmed: issue preclusion does not apply; priors were not actually litigated previously |
| Appropriateness of appellate counsel withdrawing under Anders/Penson | Counsel: No nonfrivolous issues to raise | Appellant: disagrees via pro se filing | Court: Independent review found no nonfrivolous issues; granted counsel leave to withdraw |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (procedural framework for counsel to withdraw when appellate claims are frivolous)
- Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988) (court must independently review record when counsel files Anders brief)
- United States v. Hennecke, 590 F.3d 619 (8th Cir.) (holding Missouri stealing-from-a-person is a crime of violence)
- United States v. Montgomery, 701 F.3d 1218 (8th Cir.) (treating "crime of violence" under the Guidelines and "violent felony" under § 924(e) as interchangeable for certain analyses)
- B & B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Indus., 716 F.3d 1020 (8th Cir.) (elements of issue preclusion: same issue, actually litigated, essential to prior judgment, and identical party/privity)
- State v. Twenter, 818 S.W.2d 628 (Mo. 1991) (describing Missouri voluntary-manslaughter statute as proscribing the knowing killing of a person under sudden passion)