United States v. Elijah West

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedSeptember 5, 2024
Docket23-3720
StatusUnpublished

This text of United States v. Elijah West (United States v. Elijah West) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Elijah West, (8th Cir. 2024).

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 23-3720 ___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Elijah West

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the District of South Dakota - Western ____________

Submitted: August 30, 2024 Filed: September 5, 2024 [Unpublished] ____________

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

PER CURIAM.

Elijah West appeals after a jury convicted him of murder and related firearm offenses and the district court1 sentenced him to life in prison. His counsel has

1 The Honorable Roberto Lange, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of South Dakota. moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that his speedy trial rights were violated.

Upon careful review, we conclude that West waived any argument that his rights under the Speedy Trial Act were violated by failing to assert those rights prior to trial. See United States v. Jones, 795 F.3d 791, 798 (8th Cir. 2015). We also conclude that there was no violation of his Sixth Amendment rights. See United States v. Thornberg, 676 F.3d 703, 706 (8th Cir. 2012) (error, even one affecting constitutional right, is forfeited if not timely asserted, and will be reviewed for plain error); United States v. Summage, 575 F.3d 864, 875-76 (8th Cir. 2009) (Sixth Amendment right to speedy trial was not violated where government was not primary cause of delay, defendant did not promptly assert right to speedy trial, and he failed to establish prejudice).

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

-2-

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Anders v. California
386 U.S. 738 (Supreme Court, 1967)
Penson v. Ohio
488 U.S. 75 (Supreme Court, 1988)
United States v. Thornberg
676 F.3d 703 (Eighth Circuit, 2012)
United States v. Summage
575 F.3d 864 (Eighth Circuit, 2009)
United States v. Jamie Jones
795 F.3d 791 (Eighth Circuit, 2015)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
United States v. Elijah West, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-elijah-west-ca8-2024.