United States of America v. Clarence Garretson Child Sexual Predator

St. Louis, MO - Criminal defense lawyer represented defendant charged with transporting minors in interstate commerce for criminal sexual activity.

In this direct criminal appeal, Clarence Garretson challenges the sentence the

district court1

imposed following his guilty plea to transporting minors in interstate

commerce with the intent to engage in criminal sexual activity. His counsel has

moved to withdraw and submitted a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

(1967), discussing the reasonableness of the sentence. Garretson has filed a pro se

supplemental brief, in which he argues that the district court did not properly consider

the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors; and that the statute of conviction provides for a

sentence that is "grossly disproportionate” to the offense, and is overly broad



As to the reasonableness of the sentence, we conclude that the district court did

not abuse its discretion, as it properly considered the section 3553(a) factors; there

was no indication that it overlooked a relevant factor, or committed a clear error of

judgment in weighing relevant factors, see United States v. David, 682 F.3d 1074,

1077 (8th Cir. 2012) (standard of review); United States v. Wohlman, 651 F.3d 878,

887 (8th Cir. 2011); and the sentence was within the Guidelines range, see United

States v. Callaway, 762 F.3d 754, 760 (8th Cir. 2014).

As to Garretson's pro se arguments, we conclude that a life sentence is not

grossly disproportionate to the crimes, given the number of victims, the severity of the

abuse, and the span of time over which the abuse occurred, see United States v. Scott,

610 F.3d 1009, 1017 (8th Cir. 2010) (standard of review); and that the statute is not

overly broad, see United States v. Billiot, 785 F.3d 1266, 1269 (8th Cir. 2015)

(standard of review).

We have 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.