United States v. Dwight Cooke
853 F.3d 464
| 8th Cir. | 2017Background
- State and local police investigated a methamphetamine distribution conspiracy in Davenport, Iowa (late 2014); Rachel Gonzalez and others made controlled buys that traced distribution upward to Maria Cantu and downward to Dwight Cooke.
- Federal complaint and arrest warrants were issued in mid-January 2015; Cooke was arrested by state authorities on Feb. 18, 2015, on state charges and held in state custody until transferred to federal custody on Apr. 24, 2015.
- Cooke pled guilty to the federal conspiracy charge on Oct. 16, 2015; at sentencing the district court (despite treating Cooke’s Jan. 2015 assault as nonrelevant conduct for guideline calculation) departed upward on criminal-history grounds and varied upward under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
- Cantu was arrested Jan. 17, 2015, indicted Feb. 18, 2015, and after several continuances elected a bench trial in December 2015; evidence at trial included controlled-buy surveillance, marked bills, drugs and a scale found in her motel room, and text messages downloaded from phones.
- Both defendants appealed: Cooke challenged pretrial delay rules and his sentence; Cantu challenged admission of text messages (hearsay/Confrontation), a Speedy Trial Act violation, alleged ineffective assistance of counsel, and sufficiency of the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Whether Rule 5(a) was violated by 65‑day delay between Cooke's arrest and federal initial appearance | Cooke: state custody pending transfer constituted federal detention triggering Rule 5(a) and the delay violated rule and prejudiced his preparation | Government/District Ct: Rule 5(a) remedies suppress evidence, not dismissal; Cooke identified no suppressed evidence and was not prejudiced because continuances granted for preparation | Affirmed: No available Rule 5(a) remedy shown; Cooke not prejudiced |
| 2) Whether Cooke's Sixth Amendment right to speedy trial was violated by ~267 days from indictment to plea | Cooke: delay between indictment/arrest and trial denied speedy-trial rights and prejudiced preparation | Government: delay not presumptively prejudicial given case complexity and many continuances were defense-driven; Cooke did not assert speedy-trial right | Affirmed: no Sixth Amendment violation |
| 3) Whether sentencing departures/variance were unreasonable or procedurally defective | Cooke: upward departure to higher criminal-history category and upward variance were inadequately explained and improperly considered the 2015 assault contrary to parties' agreement | Government/District Ct: §4A1.3 departure supported by reliable prior-offense facts; court considered §3553(a) factors and could consider conduct it viewed as relevant | Affirmed: no abuse of discretion in the upward departure or variance |
| 4) Cantu: admissibility of text messages; Speedy Trial Act; ineffective assistance; sufficiency of evidence | Cantu: texts hearsay/Confrontation and seized under overbroad warrants; trial delayed beyond Speedy Trial Act; counsel ineffective for not objecting and for not calling witnesses; insufficient proof of knowledge of conspiracy | Government: Cantu failed to move to suppress (waived challenges); Speedy‑Trial remedy waived by failure to move; IAC claims better raised on §2255; texts and circumstantial proof (surveillance, marked bills, drugs, communications) suffice | Affirmed: text-message objections waived; Speedy Trial claim waived; IAC deferred to collateral review; evidence sufficient to sustain conviction |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Tankersley, 374 F.3d 721 (8th Cir. 2004) (standard of review for motion to dismiss)
- United States v. Jeanetta, 533 F.3d 651 (8th Cir. 2008) (purpose of Rule 5 and its remedial focus)
- United States v. Chavez, 705 F.3d 381 (8th Cir. 2013) (Rule 5 remedy is suppression of evidence obtained from unlawful detention)
- United States v. Sprouts, 282 F.3d 1037 (8th Cir. 2002) (Sixth Amendment speedy-trial framework)
- United States v. Titlbach, 339 F.3d 692 (8th Cir. 2003) (delay thresholds for presumptive prejudice in speedy-trial analysis)
- United States v. Johnson, 648 F.3d 940 (8th Cir. 2011) (§4A1.3 permits consideration of otherwise‑uncounted prior offenses for upward departures)
- United States v. Acosta, 619 F.3d 956 (8th Cir. 2010) (standard for sufficiency review on bench‑trial appeal)