Submitted November 14, 2014.
Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Davenport.
For United States of America, Plaintiff - Appellee: Marc Krickbaum, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Maureen McGuire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, Des Moines, IA.
For Richard Leroy Mohr, Defendant - Appellant: John Leonard Lane, Cedar Rapids, IA.
Richard Leroy Mohr, Defendant - Appellant, Pro se, Tucson, AZ.
Before RILEY, Chief Judge, BEAM and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
BEAM, Circuit Judge.
The district court denied Richard Mohr's motion to suppress statements Mohr made to police after he claims he invoked his right to counsel. Mohr was subsequently found guilty by a jury on two counts. The district court that sentenced
Mohr ordered his counts to be served concurrently, and also ordered that Mohr's federal term of imprisonment was to " run consecutively to any undischarged term of imprisonment." Mohr appeals, arguing the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress, and in making his federal sentence consecutive to his undischarged civil commitment in Illinois. We affirm.
On June 24, 2011, officers interviewed Mohr, who resided in Illinois, about his contact with T.S., a minor living in Iowa. Based on statements he made to the police and other evidence, Mohr was subsequently indicted in Iowa for sexual exploitation of a child, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § § 2251(a) and 2260A, and for attempt to entice a minor to engage in illicit sexual activities, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § § 2422(b) and 2260A. Thereafter, Mohr filed a motion to suppress the statements he made in the June 24 interview on the grounds that officers continued to question him after he had invoked his right to counsel.
Mohr argues there are two instances in which he invoked his right to counsel. Mohr asserts that as he was walking into the interview room he asked his probation officer, " Should I get a lawyer at this time? . . . I think I should get one." Mohr claims that one of the other officers then responded, " You don't need a lawyer, we're just going to talk. You want to find out what's going on, don't you?" Second, Mohr says the officers asked his permission to record the interview. Mohr did not agree to the recording, and asserts that he said, " I want my lawyer. . . . [I]f you want this recorded, I want a lawyer present." The district court made a legal and factual determination that Mohr's first request for counsel was equivocal, and Mohr's second request for counsel was conditional. Accordingly, the ...