United States v. Richart
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 24297
| 8th Cir. | 2011Background
- Wanda Richart and husband were charged with conspiracy and making false statements to an FBI agent arising from Christina Richart's 1999 death.
- Richart was convicted on both federal counts; district court sentenced to 60 months on each count, consecutive, and three years of supervised release.
- PSR proposed §3B1.1(c) two-level role adjustment and upward departures under §5K2.9 and §5K2.21; Richart objected to these and related claims.
- Trial testimony showed Richart allegedly murdered Christina and sought to conceal it by lying about her whereabouts; other witnesses described threats and coercion.
- District court overruled some objections; relied on later testimony to uphold the §3B1.1(c) enhancement and to justify an upward departure; imposed 120 months total and special supervised-release conditions targeting abuse of minors.
- Richart appeals, challenging procedural errors and substantive reasonableness of the sentence and the special conditions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Challenge to §3B1.1(c) enhancement | Richart argues she merely suggested lies, not supervised others. | Richart contends lack of supervisory control; error not harmless. | Harmless error; enhancements supported by evidence; no reversal. |
| Upward departure under §5K2.9 | Richart asserts lies to federal agents do not fall outside heartland. | Court found conduct significantly outside norm given brutality and concealment. | No reversible procedural error; court properly considered factors; variance justified. |
| Consecutive counts under 5G1.2 and 3553(a) | Consecutive sentences unnecessary if total punishment achieved by one count. | Guidelines advisory; §3553 factors justify total punishment; consecutive sentences appropriate. | No procedural error; sentences run consecutively to achieve appropriate total punishment. |
| Substantive reasonableness of 120-month sentence | Sentence necessary to reflect seriousness and deter. | Sentence excessive given role and guideline range. | Within the court's discretion, substantively reasonable under §3553(a) factors. |
| Special conditions of supervised release | Conditions reasonably related to offense seriousness and protecting the public. | Conditions supported by district court's factual findings; not an abuse of discretion. | Special conditions affirmed as reasonably related and appropriately tailored. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (U.S. 2007) (procedural review of sentences; advisory guidelines; reasoned explanation)
- Feemster v. United States, 572 F.3d 455 (8th Cir. 2009 (en banc)) (abuse-of-discretion review for sentence; standard after Gall)
- Washington v. United States, 515 F.3d 861 (8th Cir. 2008) (upward variance/departure analysis with §3553(a) factors)
- Dieken v. United States, 432 F.3d 906 (8th Cir. 2006) (clarifies §3553(a) consideration without requiring factor-by-factor recitation)
- Jones v. United States, 509 F.3d 911 (8th Cir. 2007) (upward variance considerations under §3553(a))
- Robertson v. United States, 324 F.3d 1028 (8th Cir. 2003) (upward departure under §5K2.9; heartland outside normal conduct)
- Payton v. United States, 636 F.3d 1027 (8th Cir. 2011) (recruiting accomplices supports leadership role finding)
- Bear Robe v. United States, 521 F.3d 909 (8th Cir. 2008) (upward variance/consideration of factors under Gall)