United States v. Linngren
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 18021
| 8th Cir. | 2011Background
- Linngren pleaded guilty to distribution of child pornography under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252(a)(2) and (b)(1) and 2256.
- The district court held Linngren's Minnesota conviction for criminal sexual conduct relating to a minor triggered a 15-year minimum under § 2252(b)(1).
- The state conviction was for criminal sexual conduct in the fifth degree under Minnesota Statutes § 609.3451, subd. 1.
- The Minnesota statute is overinclusive, criminalizing both sexual-intent and aggressive-intent conduct, and does not require the victim to be a minor.
- The government used the charging document (the complaint) and the plea colloquy/record to determine the basis for the prior conviction under a modified categorical approach.
- The majority held the complaint showed the prior conviction related to sexual abuse of a minor and affirmed the sentence; a dissent argued the probable-cause portion cannot establish sexual intent and would vacate/remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Linngren's Minnesota conviction qualifies as a predicate offense under § 2252(b)(1). | Linngren argues the Minnesota statute is overinclusive and the record does not show sexual-intent-based abuse of a minor. | The government contends the charging document shows the offense related to sexual abuse of a minor and supports the enhancement. | Affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sonnenberg, 556 F.3d 667 (8th Cir. 2009) (defines 'relating to sexual abuse of a minor' for § 2252(b)(1))
- Weis, 487 F.3d 1148 (8th Cir. 2007) (categorical vs. noncategorical approach to predicate offenses)
- Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (Supreme Court 1990) (limits on reviewing prior records for plea-based convictions)
- Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (Supreme Court 2005) (modified categorical approach for pleas; limits on evidentiary sources)
- Stults, 575 F.3d 834 (8th Cir. 2009) (defines 'sexual abuse of a minor' and intent considerations)
- Vinton, 631 F.3d 476 (8th Cir. 2011) (discusses use of charging document vs. other records for predicates)
- McCall, 439 F.3d 967 (8th Cir. 2006) (rejects reliance on unobjected police-report-based facts for enhancements)
- King, 598 F.3d 1043 (8th Cir. 2010) (guardrails against guesswork in applying enhancements)
- Pierson, 544 F.3d 933 (8th Cir. 2008) (charges narrowing overinclusive statutes to qualifying subsections)
- Howell, 531 F.3d 621 (8th Cir. 2008) (application of modified categorical approach with pleading records)