United States v. Dontre D'Sean McHenry
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 3358
| 8th Cir. | 2017Background
- McHenry was arrested at a Motel 6 after officers, using exigent GPS location data obtained from T‑Mobile in response to an E911 request, traced a Backpage ad that featured photos of a minor (J.E.) and found McHenry with the 17‑year‑old. He pleaded guilty to one count of sex trafficking a minor under 18 U.S.C. § 1591.
- Defense counsel Edlund moved to suppress evidence from the warrantless entry/search; a magistrate judge recommended denial based on probable cause from GPS data and other information, and McHenry did not object to that recommendation. The district court adopted it.
- McHenry pleaded guilty after a Rule 11 colloquy; he later filed pro se and counsel‑supported motions to withdraw the plea, asserting ineffective assistance (failure to challenge warrantless GPS tracking), limited consultation, hearing impairment, and fetal alcohol syndrome.
- The district court denied the motion to withdraw without an evidentiary hearing, finding the plea knowing and voluntary and that McHenry could not show prejudice from counsel’s alleged failure because exigent‑circumstances reliance and lack of a strong privacy/standing claim undermined any Fourth Amendment challenge.
- At sentencing the court applied a 2‑level obstruction‑of‑justice enhancement based on McHenry’s post‑detention no‑contact violation (a letter to the victim seeking money), denied an acceptance‑of‑responsibility reduction, varied downward from a life guideline to 293 months, and McHenry appealed conviction and sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court abused discretion by denying motion to withdraw guilty plea without evidentiary hearing | McHenry: counsel was ineffective for not challenging warrantless exigent GPS tracking; plea involuntary due to poor hearing, fetal alcohol syndrome, inadequate time, and counsel pressure | Government: plea was knowing and voluntary; GPS exigent tracking was known at suppression hearing; withdrawal is improper to relitigate suppression; no prejudice shown from counsel’s performance | Denial affirmed — plea was knowing/voluntary; new evidence/ineffective‑assistance claim failed because Fourth Amendment challenge lacked merit and defendant showed no prejudice |
| Whether counsel’s failure to challenge GPS tracking constituted ineffective assistance justifying plea withdrawal | McHenry: E911 form shows warrantless GPS tracking not challenged, so prejudice exists | Government: officers reasonably relied on exigent circumstances and Stored Communications Act; defendant likely lacked standing or a reasonable expectation of privacy | Not meritorious — even assuming arguable standing, officers had good‑faith exigent‑circumstances basis; no prejudice shown |
| Whether obstruction‑of‑justice enhancement (§3C1.1) was improperly applied for letter to victim | McHenry: asking victim for money is non‑obstructive, akin to permissible conduct | Government: letter violated no‑contact order and attempted to influence a prospective sentencing witness (and affected restitution participation) | Affirmed — letter was an attempt to influence a prospective witness and justified the 2‑level enhancement |
| Whether sentence (293 months) was substantively unreasonable | McHenry: district court failed to give adequate weight to mitigating factors (mental health, substance use, fetal alcohol syndrome) | Government: sentence was a substantial downward variance from life and within broad discretion | Affirmed — sentence was a significant downward variance and not an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Morrison, 967 F.2d 264 (8th Cir.) (standard for withdrawing guilty plea)
- United States v. Cruz, 643 F.3d 639 (8th Cir.) (ineffective‑assistance standard as fair‑and‑just reason to withdraw plea)
- United States v. Freeman, 625 F.3d 1049 (8th Cir.) (guilty plea waives suppression issues not expressly reserved)
- United States v. Stringer, 739 F.3d 391 (8th Cir.) (standing to challenge search of device not automatic)
- United States v. Skinner, 690 F.3d 772 (6th Cir.) (privacy expectations in cell‑site/location data)
- United States v. Gilliam, 842 F.3d 801 (2d Cir.) (exigent circumstances can justify obtaining cell‑phone location without warrant)
- United States v. Caraballo, 831 F.3d 95 (2d Cir.) (discussing provider disclosure and location information under exigent circumstances)
- United States v. Trevino, 829 F.3d 668 (8th Cir.) (Rule 11 colloquy undermines later claims contradicting plea statements)
- United States v. Lazarski, 560 F.3d 731 (8th Cir.) (deference to wide sentencing discretion when district court imposes significant downward variance)