907 F.3d 1096
8th Cir.2018Background
- In July 2015 Bagley pleaded guilty to carjacking and related firearms charges under a written plea agreement that included an appeal waiver.
- Bagley admitted he stole a Nissan Altima at gunpoint; the car later crashed and the owner’s dog (Mister) was found dead in the vehicle.
- Victims submitted victim impact statements seeking restitution: $14,999 for loss of Mister and $3,500 for ongoing chiropractic care.
- The district court sentenced Bagley to concurrent prison terms and awarded $1,000 restitution for Mister and $2,000 for chiropractic care.
- Defense counsel filed an Anders brief challenging: (1) assessment of criminal history points tied to a Kansas conviction (later vacated), and (2) restitution awards lacking supporting documentation.
- The government conceded the chiropractic restitution lacked support but defended the dog restitution and argued the appeal waiver barred the criminal-history challenge.
Issues
| Issue | Bagley (Plaintiff) | Government (Defendant) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity/enforceability of plea appeal waiver as to challenge to criminal-history score | Waiver unenforceable / invalidates review of criminal-history after vacatur of Kansas conviction | Waiver valid; Bars appeal of criminal-history calculation | Waiver valid and enforced; criminal-history challenge barred by the waiver |
| Restitution award for chiropractic care (amount/evidentiary support) | Award unsupported by evidence; amount speculative | Government concedes insufficient evidence for award | Vacated: award unsupported by evidence and reversed |
| Restitution award for death of dog (measure of value and evidentiary support) | Victim’s statement sufficient to support restitution; replacement/raising costs appropriate | Argued victim statement and court knowledge suffice; but offered no replacement-cost evidence | Vacated: restitution for dog reversed because no evidence of replacement value or other admissible valuation |
| Counsel’s Anders review / other appealable issues outside waiver | Sought appellate review for non-frivolous issues | Government noted waiver scope; conceded chiropractic issue | Anders/Penson review found no other non-frivolous issues; counsel allowed to withdraw |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (procedural standard for counsel seeking leave to withdraw when appellate issues are frivolous)
- Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988) (appellate court independent review when counsel files Anders brief)
- Nguyen v. United States, 114 F.3d 699 (8th Cir. 1997) (standard for knowing and voluntary guilty plea and waiver)
- United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (standards for enforcing plea appeal waivers)
- United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702 (8th Cir. 2010) (de novo review of waiver enforcement)
- United States v. Sistrunk, 432 F.3d 917 (8th Cir. 2006) (scope of appeal waivers and preserved issues)
- United States v. Chalupnik, 514 F.3d 748 (8th Cir. 2008) (standard of review for restitution factual findings)
- United States v. Frazier, 651 F.3d 899 (8th Cir. 2011) (MVRA restitution principles and valuation approaches)
- United States v. Young, 272 F.3d 1052 (8th Cir. 2001) (MVRA requires actual losses, not estimates)
- Andrews v. City of West Branch, 454 F.3d 914 (8th Cir. 2006) (treating animals as property for valuation purposes)
- United States v. Kaplan, 839 F.3d 795 (9th Cir. 2016) (discussing fair market vs replacement value for destroyed property)
- United States v. Emmert, 825 F.3d 906 (8th Cir. 2016) (permitting estimates and judicial knowledge in certain restitution contexts)
- United States v. Hoskins, 876 F.3d 942 (8th Cir. 2017) (recognizing limited conjecture may be permissible in restitution calculation)