The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld the sentence of Justin Dequize Preston, who pleaded guilty to possession of a stolen firearm. The court ruled on October 28, 2026, in case number 25-2288, affirming the 120-month sentence recommended in a plea agreement. This decision affects Preston, who had hoped to appeal his sentence based on claims of ineffective counsel and prosecutorial misconduct.

Preston's case centers around his guilty plea to one count of possession of a stolen firearm, violating federal laws under 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(j) and 924(a)(2). As part of a plea agreement, Preston and the United States jointly recommended a 10-year sentence. In exchange for this recommendation, Preston agreed to waive his right to appeal all non-jurisdictional issues, except for claims of prosecutorial misconduct. This waiver became a focal point in the appeal process.

The dispute arose when Preston sought to appeal his sentence, claiming that his trial counsel was ineffective and that the United States had engaged in prosecutorial misconduct by presenting false testimony during a suppression hearing. The United States responded by moving to dismiss the appeal, arguing it violated the terms of the plea agreement.

The Eighth Circuit, consisting of Judges Gruender, Kelly, and Kobes, reviewed the case. In their ruling, the court stated that Preston could not succeed on either of his claims. Regarding the ineffective assistance of counsel, the court noted, "ordinarily, we do not address claims of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal because such claims usually involve facts outside of the existing record and are therefore best addressed in postconviction proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 2255." This means that Preston can still pursue this claim in a different legal setting.

On the matter of prosecutorial misconduct, the court found Preston's argument insufficient. They pointed out that Preston's claims were too brief and lacked supporting evidence. The court explained, "Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(a)(8)(A) requires that an appellant’s argument contain ‘contentions and the reasons for them, with citations to the authorities and parts of the record on which the appellant relies.’" Since Preston did not provide the necessary citations or legal backing, his argument was dismissed.

Ultimately, the court affirmed Preston's sentence, stating, "For the foregoing reasons, we affirm." They also dismissed the United States' motion to dismiss the appeal based on the waiver, as the court resolved the appeal on its merits.

This ruling has significant implications for Preston, as it confirms the validity of his plea agreement and the sentence imposed. It also highlights the importance of providing thorough arguments and evidence in appellate cases. The court's decision reinforces the notion that claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are generally better suited for postconviction proceedings rather than direct appeals.

The outcome of this case may serve as a precedent for future appeals involving plea agreements and claims of prosecutorial misconduct. It emphasizes the necessity for appellants to present well-supported arguments when challenging their sentences.

Looking ahead, Preston may still have the option to pursue his ineffective assistance of counsel claim through postconviction proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Details were not available in the court filing regarding any related cases or further actions Preston may take.