United States v. Shane Denny ( 2016 )

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 15-3490
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Shane Denny
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Missouri - Springfield
____________
Submitted: May 2, 2016
Filed: May 5, 2016
[Unpublished]
____________
Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Shane Denny was found incompetent under 18 U.S.C. § 4241(d) to stand trial
on federal charges involving violent conduct and was then civilly committed
following proceedings held under 18 U.S.C. § 4246 ( providing for the hospitalization
of a person found to be suffering from a mental disease or defect such that his release
would be dangerous). Denny appeals from the commitment order entered by the
District Court,1 challenging the sufficiency of the evidence.
After reviewing the record, we see no clear error. See United States v.
Williams, 299 F.3d 673, 676 (8th Cir. 2002) (setting forth the standard of review and
noting that a finding is clearly erroneous only if the reviewing court is left with
definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made); United States v. LeClair,
338 F.3d 882, 885 (8th Cir.) (noting that factors suggesting dangerousness include
a history of prior assault; substance abuse; “extreme paranoia and grandiose
delusions; . . . little insight into [one’s] mental illness and need for treatment; no
assurance of compliance with treatment outside a structured setting; potential access
to weapons; and lack of external environmental controls on release”), cert. denied,
540 U.S. 1025 (2003). In particular, the District Court’s order is supported by
Denny’s demonstrated lack of insight into his major mental illness; his history of
deterioration when noncompliant with treatment; his paranoid beliefs and continuing
symptoms, even while compliant with treatment; and his history of violent behavior.
We therefore affirm the judgment of the District Court, and we grant counsel’s
motion to withdraw.
______________________________
1
The Honorable M. Douglas Harpool, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Missouri, adopting the report and recommendations of the
Honorable David P. Rush, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of
Missouri.
-2-