United States of America v. Joshua Paarmann

St. Louis, Missouri criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant charged with conspiracy to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine; (2) possession with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine and; (3) possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime.

A jury convicted Josh J. Paarmann of five counts: (1) conspiracy to distribute

50 grams or more of methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1),

841(b)(1)(A), and 846; (2) possession with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of

methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(A); (3)

possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime in violation of 18

-2-

U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i); (4) felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition in

violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2); and (5) possession with intent to

distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §

841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(A). The district court1 sentenced him to 420 months in

prison. He appeals. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.

Officers conducted a controlled buy of meth from Paarmann at his residence

in Davenport, Iowa. An audio and video device recorded the controlled buy to Tyler

Storment, a confidential informant. He told officers that he saw firearms, drugs, and

drug paraphernalia in the residence. Later that day, executing a search warrant,

officers saw Paarmann flee from the residence. Four cooperating witnesses,

including Storment, testified at trial. Two acknowledged cooperating for a reduced

sentence.

I.

Paarmann argues that his counsel was ineffective by failing to pursue

impeachment of the cooperating witnesses. At trial, outside the jury's presence, the

district court asked whether Paarmann's counsel would cross examine about the

mandatory minimum that some cooperating witnesses faced. Counsel replied that

he was not going to "attack” the mandatory minimums of the cooperating witnesses

because it's "just not my strategy.” See generally Strickland v. Washington, 466

U.S. 668, 681 (1984) (holding that "when counsel's strategy represents a reasonable

choice,” counsel need not investigate certain inquiries that they have chosen not to

employ at trial).

Ineffective assistance of counsel claims are ordinarily deferred to 28 U.S.C. §

2255 proceedings, because they normally involve facts outside the record. United

States v. Hughes, 330 F.3d 1068, 1069 (8th Cir. 2003). Because the record here is

1

The Honorable Stephanie M. Rose, Chief Judge, United States District Court

for the Southern District of Iowa.

-3-

not fully developed, consideration of Paarmann's ineffective assistance claim is

deferred to collateral proceedings.

II.

Paarmann asserts there was insufficient evidence to find him guilty of the

crime of possession of a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking. The jury had to

find that (1) Paarmann committed one of the drug crimes charged; (2) Paarmann

knowingly possessed a firearm; and (3) there was a nexus between the firearm and

the drug crime. See United States v. Druger, 920 F.3d 567, 570 (8th Cir. 2019).

There was sufficient evidence of guilt here. Storment testified that during the

controlled buy, there "were a couple firearms”—a clip-fed gun and a revolver—on

the couch in the living room where Paarmann resided. The video showed Paarmann

on that couch, weighing out the meth for distribution. Right before making the buy,

Storment saw Paarmann and two others using meth. When Paarmann fled the

apartment during the execution of the search warrant, officers recovered 3.25 pounds

of meth; $6,050 in cash; drug paraphernalia; a .38 special Ruger LCR revolver; one

round of .38 special ammunition; 10 rounds of .380 ammunition; a gun cleaner;

digital scales; and packaging material. Storment testified that Paarmann, months

before the controlled buy, had shown him a revolver like the one found.

Cooperating witness Jared M. Ricklefs testified he had observed Paarmann in

possession of a revolver "one or two times.” Specifically, he saw a revolver on

Paarmann's hip while they were using drugs. Cooperating witness Keith Hansen

testified that three months after the controlled buy, he helped Paarmann conceal

meth in a truck while Paarmann was carrying a firearm.

"When reviewing a claim regarding the sufficiency of evidence supporting a

criminal conviction, the Court conducts a de novo review, viewing evidence in the

light most favorable to the government, resolving conflicts in the government's

favor, and accepting all reasonable inferences that support the verdict.” United

-4-

States v. Williams, 910 F.3d 1084, 1090 (8th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks

omitted). The court will reverse "only if no reasonable jury could have found the

accused guilty.” United States v. Flying By, 511 F.3d 773, 776 (8th Cir. 2007). As

Paarmann acknowledges, on "numerous occasions” this court has "upheld jury

verdicts based solely on the testimony of cooperating witnesses.” United States v.

Bradley, 643 F.3d 1121, 1125 (8th Cir. 2011).

Here, Storment's testimony—that the firearm was in close proximity to

Paarmann during the sale of meth—was sufficient for the jury to infer that his

possession of the firearm facilitated that drug crime. See United States v. RushRichardson, 574 F.3d 906, 909 (8th Cir. 2009) (holding that the jury may infer that

the defendant's possession of a firearm facilitated a drug crime based on evidence

indicating that the firearm "was used for protection, was kept near the drugs, or was

in close proximity to the defendant during drug transactions”).

This court does not weigh the evidence or witness credibility as the jury has "the sole responsibility to resolve conflicts or contradictions in testimony.” United States v. Wiest, 596 F.3d 906, 910 (8th Cir. 2010). The evidence was sufficient for the jury to convict Paarmann of possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime.



* * * * * * *

The judgment is affirmed.