Court Opinion

ID: 9352958
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-10 17:00:20.982723+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:06:10.581010
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                            For the Eighth Circuit
                        ___________________________

                                No. 22-2413
                        ___________________________

                             United States of America

                        lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

                                           v.

                               Jerry Michael Conley

                       lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
                                       ____________

                     Appeal from United States District Court
               for the Eastern District of Missouri - Cape Girardeau
                                   ____________

                            Submitted: January 5, 2023
                             Filed: January 10, 2023
                                  [Unpublished]
                                 ____________

Before LOKEN, GRUENDER, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.
                          ____________

PER CURIAM.

      Jerry Conley appeals after he conditionally pleaded guilty to being a felon in
possession of a firearm. He challenges the district court’s1 denial of his motion to

      1
       The Honorable Stephen R. Clark, Chief Judge, United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Missouri, adopting the report and recommendations of the
Honorable Abbie Crites-Leoni, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern
suppress evidence. His counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).

       Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not err in denying
Conley’s motion to suppress. See United States v. Guzman, 926 F.3d 991, 997 (8th
Cir. 2019). The officer did not violate the Fourth Amendment by checking on Conley
and the other occupant of the vehicle and asking for their identification. See Hiibel
v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court, 542 U.S. 177, 185 (2004); United States v. Halter, 988
F.3d 1042, 1046 (8th Cir. 2021). Once the officer discovered that neither of the
occupants of the vehicle had a valid driver’s license and that the vehicle was stolen,
he had reasonable suspicion and probable cause to seize Conley and ultimately arrest
him. See Young v. United States, 344 F.2d 1006, 1008 (8th Cir. 1965). The search
of Conley’s person was justified as incident to his arrest, see United States v. Brewer,
624 F.3d 900, 905 (8th Cir. 2010); the search of the vehicle was justified because the
officer saw the firearm in plain view, see United States v. Dunn, 928 F.3d 688, 693
(8th Cir. 2019); the interviews of Conley were Mirandized; and Conley did not
present any evidence to demonstrate that his statements were involuntary, see United
States v. Syslo, 303 F.3d 860, 866 (8th Cir. 2002) (per curiam).

       We have also independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488
U.S. 75 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we
grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm.
                      ______________________________

District of Missouri.

                                          -2-