The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals addressed a complex sentencing appeal in *United States v. Trina Mae Johnson* (8th Cir. 2026), involving a defendant who rejected a plea agreement before ultimately pleading guilty to serious child abuse charges.
Trina Mae Johnson faced federal prosecution for multiple charges related to child abuse, including child torture, child neglect, child endangerment, and assaulting a minor with a dangerous weapon. The charges were brought under both Minnesota state statutes and federal law, including violations of Minn. Stat. §§ 609.3775, 609.05, 609.378 subdiv. 1(a)(1), 609.378 subdiv. 1(b)(1), and 18 U.S.C. §§ 113(a)(2) & 3559(f)(3), prosecuted under the Major Crimes Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1153.
The case presented unusual procedural circumstances when Johnson rejected the government's plea agreement offer on the eve of trial. The proposed plea deal would have resulted in a 120-month mandatory minimum sentence. Instead of proceeding to trial, Johnson chose to plead guilty without any plea agreement, leaving her sentencing entirely to the discretion of the district court.
The sentencing process proved complex because three of the major crimes offenses lacked applicable or analogous sentencing guidelines. This meant the appropriate sentence had to be determined under the broader framework of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), which requires courts to consider various factors including the nature of the offense, the defendant's history, and the need for deterrence and public protection.
The Presentence Investigation Report determined that the advisory guidelines sentencing range for the fourth conviction—assaulting a minor with a deadly weapon—was 120 months imprisonment with a 10-year mandatory minimum. However, the government sought a significantly harsher penalty at sentencing, requesting a 20-year sentence.
During the sentencing hearing, Johnson expressed remorse for her actions and urged the court to impose a sentence close to what had been offered in the rejected plea agreement—the 120-month mandatory minimum. This positioned her sentencing as a choice between the government's original offer, which she had declined, and the prosecution's enhanced request for 20 years.
The case highlights several important aspects of federal criminal law and sentencing. First, it demonstrates the risks defendants face when rejecting plea agreements, particularly in cases involving mandatory minimum sentences. Johnson's decision to reject the 120-month plea offer left her vulnerable to a potentially longer sentence if convicted at trial or, as occurred here, when pleading guilty without an agreement.
Second, the case illustrates the complexity of sentencing when multiple jurisdictions and legal frameworks apply. The charges spanned both state and federal law, with prosecution under the Major Crimes Act, which gives federal courts jurisdiction over certain serious crimes committed in Indian country. This jurisdictional framework often applies to cases involving Native American defendants or crimes committed on tribal lands.
The absence of applicable sentencing guidelines for three of the four charges placed additional discretion with the district court. When guidelines don't provide clear direction, judges must rely on the broader sentencing factors outlined in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), including the seriousness of the offense, the defendant's criminal history, the need for deterrence, and protection of the public.
The Eighth Circuit's review of this case occurred under 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a)(4), which governs appellate review of sentences. The appeals court panel, consisting of Circuit Judges Loken, Erickson, and Kobes, with Judge Loken writing the opinion, evaluated whether the district court's sentencing decision was appropriate given the unique circumstances.
This case underscores the gravity with which federal courts treat crimes against children, particularly those involving torture, neglect, and assault with dangerous weapons. The government's request for a 20-year sentence—significantly longer than the original plea offer—reflects the prosecution's view of the severity of Johnson's conduct.
The procedural timeline shows the case was submitted to the Eighth Circuit on June 11, 2025, with the court's opinion filed on Jan. 5, 2026. This relatively quick turnaround suggests the appeals court prioritized resolution of the sentencing issues.
For practitioners, the case serves as a reminder of the importance of carefully evaluating plea offers, particularly when mandatory minimums are involved. It also highlights the challenges of sentencing in cases where guidelines provide limited guidance, requiring courts to exercise broad discretion under section 3553(a).
The outcome of Johnson's appeal and the final sentence imposed will likely influence how similar cases are handled in the Eighth Circuit, particularly regarding the balance between prosecutorial recommendations and defendants' expressions of remorse when plea agreements have been rejected.