Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01661/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01661-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jerry Lee Mutchler
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Robert W. Pratt, United States District Court for the Southern

District of Iowa. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-1661

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Southern

* District of Iowa.

Jerry Lee Mutchler, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

*

___________

Submitted: September 14, 2005

Filed: October 5, 2005 

___________

Before MELLOY, BEAM, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. 

___________

PER CURIAM.

A jury found Jerry Lee Mutchler guilty of one count of conspiracy to

manufacture and distribute methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1),

841(b)(1)(A), and 846. The district court1

 sentenced Mutchler to 240 months in

prison, followed by a supervised release term of 10 years. Jurisdiction being proper

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.

Appellate Case: 05-1661 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/05/2005 Entry ID: 1959908
-2-

Mutchler's only argument on appeal is that the evidence was insufficient to

support the jury verdict. He contends that he merely used and purchased meth, but

did not conspire to manufacture and distribute it. 

In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, this court views the evidence in

the light most favorable to the government, resolving evidentiary conflicts in favor

of the government, and accepting all reasonable inferences that support the jury's

verdict. United States v. Collins, 340 F.3d 672, 678 (8th Cir. 2003). Reversal is

justified only if no reasonable jury could find the defendant guilty beyond a

reasonable doubt. United States v. Chapman, 356 F.3d 843, 847 (8th Cir. 2004).

A conviction for conspiracy to manufacture and distribute meth will be upheld

when the evidence shows the existence of a conspiracy, which the defendant knew

about and intentionally joined. See United States v. Hayes, 391 F.3d 958, 961 (8th

Cir. 2004). Mutchler contends that there is insufficient evidence that he intentionally

joined the conspiracy to manufacture and distribute meth. This court disagrees. 

At trial, at least three co-conspirators described the meth conspiracy and

Mutchler's role as a distributor. These witnesses testified that Mutchler received a

steady supply of meth for distribution and that he always promptly paid for his share

of the drugs. Three of Mutchler's customers also testified that they purchased meth

from him on a number of occasions and that they had seen him deal to at least ten

other people during 2003 and 2004. Although Mutchler objects that these witnesses

are not credible given their personal interest in cooperating with the government, it

is the jury's prerogative to believe or disbelieve such testimony. See United States v.

Espino, 317 F.3d 788, 794 (8th Cir. 2003). 

 Mutchler's own testimony was, in fact, consistent with the testimony by the

government witnesses. He admitted that a meth conspiracy existed and that he knew

about it and its members. Though Mutchler claimed that he was only a customer, he

Appellate Case: 05-1661 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/05/2005 Entry ID: 1959908
-3-

admitted selling much of the meth that he bought from others. Specifically, he

admitted that one of his primary means of financial support during the life of the

conspiracy was the sale of meth. 

Physical evidence from a search of Mutchler's residence further supports the

jury's conviction. Police officers uncovered meth, packaging materials, scales, and

a firearm from Mutchler's home. Telephone records and handwritten notes also

showed calls to other members of the conspiracy and to the meth customers who

testified at trial. 

It was reasonable for the jury to conclude that Mutchler was a knowing

participant in the methamphetamine conspiracy. Accordingly, the judgment of the

district court is affirmed. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-1661 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/05/2005 Entry ID: 1959908