United States v. Marvin Starr

Eighth Circuit

United States v. Marvin Starr

259 F. App'x 904

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 15, 2008

Docket07-1061

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 259 F. App'x 904 (United States v. Marvin Starr) 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. Marvin Starr, 259 F. App'x 904 (8th Cir. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

A jury found Marvin Dennis Starr guilty of producing child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a), and possessing child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4)(B). The district court 1 sen *905 tenced him below the advisory Guidelines range to 240 months in prison and 10 years of supervised release. On appeal, his counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and has moved to withdraw. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm.

Counsel first argues that there was insufficient evidence to support the production conviction because the children produced the images on their own, not at Starr’s direction. Accepting all of the trial evidence and inferences therefrom that support the verdict, as we must, we conclude that a reasonable jury could have found Starr guilty. See United States v. Urkevich, 408 F.3d 1031, 1036 (8th Cir. 2005). The verdict in this case rested on a credibility determination, which is the province of the jury and which is virtually unreviewable on appeal. See United States v. Davis, 471 F.3d 938, 948 (8th Cir.2006).

Next, counsel argues that the prosecutor engaged in misconduct by characterizing Starr as a pedophile and sexual predator, once each during his cross-examination of Starr and his closing argument. Because the defense did not object below, we review for plain error, and we conclude that the prosecutor’s comments—even if improper—did not so infect the trial as to render it fundamentally unfair. See United States v. Mullins, 446 F.3d 750, 757-59 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 284, 166 L.Ed.2d 217 (2006).

Having found no nonfrivolous issues after reviewing the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we affirm the judgment of the district court and grant counsel’s request to withdraw.

1

. The Honorable Robert W. Pratt, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Southem District of Iowa.

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

PER CURIAM.

A jury found Marvin Dennis Starr guilty of producing child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a), and possessing child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4)(B). The district court 1 sen *905 tenced him below the advisory Guidelines range to 240 months in prison and 10 years of supervised release. On appeal, his counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and has moved to withdraw. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm.

Counsel first argues that there was insufficient evidence to support the production conviction because the children produced the images on their own, not at Starr’s direction. Accepting all of the trial evidence and inferences therefrom that support the verdict, as we must, we conclude that a reasonable jury could have found Starr guilty. See United States v. Urkevich, 408 F.3d 1031, 1036 (8th Cir. 2005). The verdict in this case rested on a credibility determination, which is the province of the jury and which is virtually unreviewable on appeal. See United States v. Davis, 471 F.3d 938, 948 (8th Cir.2006).

Next, counsel argues that the prosecutor engaged in misconduct by characterizing Starr as a pedophile and sexual predator, once each during his cross-examination of Starr and his closing argument. Because the defense did not object below, we review for plain error, and we conclude that the prosecutor’s comments—even if improper—did not so infect the trial as to render it fundamentally unfair. See United States v. Mullins, 446 F.3d 750, 757-59 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 284, 166 L.Ed.2d 217 (2006).

Having found no nonfrivolous issues after reviewing the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we affirm the judgment of the district court and grant counsel’s request to withdraw.

1

. The Honorable Robert W. Pratt, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Southem District of Iowa.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

259 F. App'x 904, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-marvin-starr-ca8-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack