United States v. Terry Miksell ( 2023 )

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 22-3226
___________________________
United States of America,
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee,
v.
Terry Lee Miksell,
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant.
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Missouri - Joplin
____________
Submitted: April 24, 2023
Filed: April 27, 2023
[Unpublished]
____________
Before LOKEN, COLLOTON, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Tyler Miksell appeals after a jury found him guilty of sexually exploiting and
enticing a minor, and the district court1 sentenced him to life in prison. His counsel
1
The Honorable Roseann A. Ketchmark, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Missouri.
has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738(1967), and Miksell has filed a pro se brief.
Miksell argues that the district court erred in denying his motion to dismiss for
selective prosecution. We conclude that there was no error: Miksell did not allege
any facts indicating that his prosecution was based on an impermissible motive. See
Flowers v. City of Minneapolis, 558 F.3d 794, 798-800 (8th Cir. 2009); United States
v. Kelley, 152 F.3d 881, 886 (8th Cir. 1998).
We also conclude that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to find
Miksell guilty on both counts. See United States v. Pliego, 578 F.3d 938, 941 (8th
Cir. 2009) (standard of review). As to his conviction for sexually exploiting a minor,
the evidence showed that G.M. was 16 when she sent Miksell illicit images because
he repeatedly asked for them, and that Miksell asked G.M. to send him images of
herself in specific positions with the intent that she send him those images. See 18
U.S.C. § 2251(a); United States v. Frommelt, 971 F.3d 823, 828 (8th Cir. 2020). On
the conviction for coercing and enticing a minor, the evidence showed that Miksell
repeatedly asked G.M. to have sex with him via internet-based messages, discussed
when G.M. would get her driver’s license so she could sneak out to see him, and
engaged in sexual contact with G.M. See 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b); United States v.
Patten, 397 F.3d 1100, 1102-03 (8th Cir. 2005).
We decline to consider on direct appeal Miksell’s claims that counsel was
ineffective, as the record is not adequately developed. See United States v.
Ramirez-Hernandez, 449 F.3d 824, 826-27 (8th Cir. 2006). We have also
independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and we
find no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm, and we grant
counsel’s motion to withdraw.
______________________________
-2-