Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

A 75-year-old defendant was convicted in 2010 of serious sexual offenses against children and sentenced to a determinate term of 10 years plus a consecutive indeterminate term of 25 years to life in prison. In January 2023, he was released from custody on medical parole due to his permanent inability to perform basic daily activities, and he began residing in a privately owned long-term care facility. Despite statutory requirements, the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (the Department) continued to fund his care because it failed to apply for federal benefits on his behalf. In November 2024, the Department recommended that the trial court consider compassionate release for the defendant, citing his advanced age and severe medical incapacitation, including dementia and the aftermath of a stroke.The Superior Court of Riverside County considered the Department’s recommendation, overruled the prosecution’s objections to hearsay evidence regarding the defendant’s medical condition, and admitted records from the care facility. The court determined the defendant was medically incapacitated, granted the recall of his sentence, and ordered his release without imposing parole or resentencing him. The prosecution objected, arguing errors in admitting hearsay, allowing remote testimony, failing to resentence, a clerical error in the court’s minute order, and the lack of mandatory parole conditions.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two, reviewed the case. It held that while the trial court erred in considering certain unreliable hearsay, the error was harmless because sufficient reliable evidence supported the finding of medical incapacitation. The court found no prejudice in permitting remote testimony and affirmed the trial court’s discretion to allow it. However, it determined the trial court was required to resentence the defendant and correct the clerical error in the minute order. The Court of Appeal also held that imposing parole conditions is the responsibility of the parole board, not the trial court. The order was affirmed with directions to resentence and correct the record. View "People v. Espinosa" on Justia Law

The defendant engaged in a long-running scheme to illegally export components for night-vision and thermal-vision rifle scopes, which are classified as “defense articles” under federal law, from California to Russia. He did so without obtaining the required export license from the U.S. State Department and concealed his activities through offshore banking. Over nearly a decade, his illicit exports generated over $9 million in international wire transfers.After federal investigators uncovered the operation, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California charged him with conspiracy to export defense articles without a license under the Arms Export Control Act (AECA) and its implementing regulations, as well as two counts of money laundering. The defendant pleaded guilty to all three counts without a plea agreement and was sentenced to nine years in prison. His conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and the Supreme Court denied certiorari.Subsequently, the defendant filed a motion to vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel. He claimed his lawyer failed to challenge the validity of the conspiracy regulation under which he was convicted and did not properly inform him about the money-laundering charges. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the district court’s denial of this motion de novo. The court held that the AECA authorized the State Department to promulgate regulations criminalizing conspiracies to violate export restrictions, so counsel’s failure to challenge the regulation was not deficient. The factual record also foreclosed the defendant’s claim regarding the money-laundering pleas. The court affirmed the district court’s denial of the § 2255 motion and declined to expand the certificate of appealability to include additional claims. View "USA V. MORGOVSKY" on Justia Law

In May 2023, law enforcement officers in North Dakota responded to a report of gunshots fired into electrical equipment at a substation owned by two power cooperatives. Near the scene, officers searched a car and found a gun case and medication labeled with Cameron Smith’s name. A tow truck employee identified Smith as the driver and indicated he had dropped Smith off at a nearby hotel. Officers located Smith at the hotel, detained him, and obtained surveillance footage showing him with duffel bags later found in a dumpster. The bags contained firearms and ammunition matching shell casings at the substation. Officers obtained warrants to test the bags for DNA and to search Smith’s residence and devices. Smith was charged with destruction of an energy facility in North Dakota and later in South Dakota for a similar incident.The United States District Court for the District of North Dakota denied Smith’s motion to suppress evidence, ruling that the evidence would have been inevitably discovered even absent the challenged searches. Smith then entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving his right to appeal the suppression ruling. At sentencing, the district court applied a 12-level upward departure under the sentencing guidelines and imposed consecutive sentences totaling 300 months, plus over $2 million in restitution.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the denial of Smith’s motion to suppress, finding that the modified warrant affidavit supported probable cause and that the evidence was admissible under the inevitable discovery doctrine. The court also concluded that Smith’s appeal waiver barred his challenge to the restitution order. However, the appellate court found procedural error in the calculation of the sentencing guideline range, holding that the evidence did not support a finding that Smith’s motive was to intimidate or coerce a civilian population as required for the sentencing departure. The court vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Smith" on Justia Law

A native and citizen of Poland entered the United States without inspection in 1999 and adjusted to lawful permanent resident status in 2006. Between 2006 and 2008, he participated in a conspiracy to retaliate against employees who had sued his employer for wage violations, including hiring individuals to commit violent acts and intimidation. He pleaded guilty in 2012 to conspiracy to retaliate against witnesses and parties to an official proceeding, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1513(b) and (f), and was sentenced to 364 days’ imprisonment.Removal proceedings were initiated by the Department of Homeland Security. Before an Immigration Judge, he argued that his conviction was not for a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT) and that the offense was not committed within five years of his admission. The Immigration Judge denied his motion to terminate removal, finding the conviction was categorically a CIMT and met the timing requirement. He sought relief under the Convention Against Torture and a hardship waiver, but was denied by a second Immigration Judge. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed his appeal. On a previous petition for review, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit remanded for the BIA to reconsider the CIMT determination. The BIA again concluded the conviction was categorically a CIMT.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the BIA’s decision. It held that conspiracy to retaliate against witnesses in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1513(b) is categorically a crime involving moral turpitude, and that the CIMT ground for removability is not unconstitutionally vague as applied. The court also declined to reconsider arguments already rejected in the earlier petition. The petition for review was denied. View "Dziedziach v. Blanche" on Justia Law

An individual pleaded guilty to twelve felony counts, including threatening members of Congress and their families and transmitting those threats via interstate communication. The sentencing guidelines recommended a prison term of 33 to 41 months based on the offense level and criminal history. Although the guidelines did not permit probation, the court imposed a five-year probation term, as urged by all parties, with special conditions, including monitored communications and a prohibition on making further threats. Within days, the defendant violated probation by sending another threatening message to a former federal official, prompting the probation office to seek revocation.The United States District Court for the District of Colorado held a revocation hearing, revoked probation, and resentenced the defendant. The court referenced both Chapter 5 and Chapter 7 of the Sentencing Guidelines, ultimately imposing a 36-month prison sentence based on the Chapter 5 range. The defendant appealed, arguing that the court erred by not starting with Chapter 7’s recommended range for probation violations. Initially, the appellate panel affirmed the sentence, interpreting prior circuit precedent, United States v. Moore (Moore I), as not requiring the district court to identify an alternative sentence at the original sentencing.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, sitting en banc, reviewed whether Moore I’s two-step sentencing process—first considering the underlying offense under Chapter 5 and then the probation violation under Chapter 7—was correct. The court held that after revoking probation, the sentencing court must take Chapter 7’s recommended range as its starting point, and only consider Chapter 5’s range when deciding whether to vary from Chapter 7’s recommendation. Because the district court did not follow this process, the Tenth Circuit reversed the sentence and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Seals" on Justia Law

A police officer in Puerto Rico was convicted after accepting a bribe from a woman he had arrested for marijuana possession. The officer promised to help the woman avoid a criminal conviction in exchange for sex. The woman, a young assistant nurse studying to become a full-time nurse, feared that a conviction would jeopardize her career. After her arrest, she met with the officer, who suggested that he could get her case dismissed if she provided sexual favors. She agreed, and they had sex, but the officer did not deliver on his promise. The woman subsequently faced multiple court appearances, hired a private attorney, and ultimately pleaded guilty, incurring various costs and emotional distress.The United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico presided over the trial, during which the jury convicted the officer of violating 18 U.S.C. § 666(a)(1)(B), which prohibits government officials from accepting bribes in connection with business or transactions involving $5,000 or more. The defendant moved for acquittal, arguing that the government failed to prove the value of the "business" or "transaction" exceeded $5,000. The district court denied the motion. On appeal, the defendant challenged both the sufficiency of the evidence regarding the $5,000 threshold and an alleged violation of his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination due to statements by the prosecution during closing argument.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the conviction. The court held that the evidence was sufficient for a reasonable jury to find that the value of avoiding a criminal conviction—considering the woman’s career prospects, legal expenses, fines, and her own testimony—exceeded $5,000. The court also found no clear or obvious error in the prosecution’s closing argument regarding the defendant’s decision not to testify. The conviction was affirmed. View "US v. Velez-Ramirez" on Justia Law

The appellant was convicted in the 1990s for bank and armored car robberies committed with a group that included Anthony Shea. These crimes involved frequent use of firearms, and in one particularly violent incident, two armored car guards were killed execution-style. The convictions included armed bank robbery, carjacking, Hobbs Act robbery and conspiracy, gun possession by a felon or drug user, and aiding and abetting the use of a firearm during a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). The trial judge instructed the jury that several offenses were “crimes of violence” for the gun-use charge, but the verdict form did not specify which predicate offense the jury relied upon.Following his conviction, the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire sentenced him to life imprisonment, applying enhancements under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) based on prior convictions. After the Supreme Court in Johnson v. United States struck down ACCA’s residual clause, a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit allowed the appellant to file a successive habeas petition. The district court subsequently vacated the ACCA-enhanced sentence and imposed a lower term, but declined to grant a full resentencing or to vacate the § 924(c) conviction, reasoning that the jury instruction error was harmless because valid predicate offenses remained.Upon appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the denial of § 2255 relief de novo and for harmless error. It held that the district court's reliance on the harmless-error standard was correct and that the error in instructing on an invalid predicate offense did not have a substantial and injurious effect on the jury’s verdict, given the interrelated and coextensive nature of the valid and invalid predicates. The court further held that the appellant was not entitled to a certificate of appealability or to a full resentencing, as no substantial constitutional claim was raised regarding the district court’s choice of remedy. The judgment was affirmed and the request for a certificate of appealability denied. View "McDonald v. US" on Justia Law

The case concerns Michael C. Hoffpowier, who was investigated after his estranged wife, B.H., reported to law enforcement that he had scheduled an appointment at her workplace under a false name and had a history of harassing her across multiple states. Officers responding to the scene located Hoffpowier’s vehicle in a nearby parking lot. Upon approaching, they observed behavior they interpreted as a potential flight risk, including the vehicle being put in reverse. Hoffpowier was handcuffed after failing to comply with commands to approach an officer. While detained, officers reviewed text messages between Hoffpowier and B.H. and, with his consent, observed binoculars and a gun magazine in his vehicle. A search of the vehicle revealed firearms and a silencer.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee denied Hoffpowier’s motion to suppress the evidence obtained from the search, concluding that the handcuffing did not constitute an arrest and that there was a reasonable basis to believe the vehicle contained evidence related to stalking. The magistrate judge’s report and recommendation to deny suppression was adopted after Hoffpowier’s objections were overruled, in part because he did not update his arguments in light of the report’s analysis. Hoffpowier subsequently pleaded guilty to possession of an unregistered silencer.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The court held that the officers’ use of handcuffs during the investigatory stop was reasonable given the circumstances and did not convert the stop into an arrest. It further held that the presence of binoculars visible in the vehicle provided a reasonable basis to believe that the vehicle contained evidence pertinent to the stalking offense, justifying the warrantless search under the search-incident-to-arrest exception. View "United States v. Hoffpowier" on Justia Law

Reginald Smith, previously convicted of multiple cocaine-related felonies in Florida state court, was arrested in December 2019 after officers investigating illegal hunting found him holding a loaded shotgun. During a search, officers discovered additional ammunition, a hunting knife, and MDMA pills. An agent determined that Smith’s shotgun had traveled in interstate commerce, having been manufactured outside Florida. Smith, as a result, was indicted for possession of a firearm as a felon under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and possession of MDMA under 21 U.S.C. § 844(a). He pleaded guilty to both counts.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida reviewed Smith’s prior convictions to determine whether they triggered the mandatory minimum sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e). The court considered evolving precedent—including United States v. Conage and United States v. Jackson—regarding whether certain Florida drug crimes qualified as “serious drug offenses” under ACCA. After law developments clarified that Smith’s two 1993 convictions for selling cocaine and his 2001 conviction for trafficking cocaine were ACCA predicates under Eleventh Circuit precedent, the court applied the ACCA enhancement. Smith was sentenced to 180 months’ imprisonment for the firearm count and 12 months for MDMA possession, to run concurrently. Smith objected to the ACCA enhancement but acknowledged its applicability under current circuit law.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed Smith’s conviction and sentence. The court held that § 922(g)(1) did not violate the Second Amendment or Commerce Clause, Smith invited any error regarding ACCA classification of his convictions, the district court’s error under Erlinger v. United States did not affect Smith’s substantial rights, and any error in calculating his base offense level under the Sentencing Guidelines was harmless. View "USA v. Smith" on Justia Law

Federal law enforcement intercepted thousands of phone calls between April and June 2021, some of which involved the defendant discussing marijuana and firearm transactions. In April 2022, following a traffic stop, officers detected a strong marijuana odor and, after a brief struggle, arrested the defendant. A search of his vehicle uncovered firearms, large quantities of marijuana, codeine, and cash. The next day, a Glock switch was found in the patrol car where the defendant had been held. He was initially charged in May 2022 by indictment for offenses relating to this incident and later indicted again with 34 codefendants in a broader drug conspiracy case in November 2022.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment on Speedy Trial Act and Sixth Amendment grounds. The trial jury convicted him on several counts, including conspiracy to distribute marijuana, possession with intent to distribute marijuana, possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, and use of a communications facility in furtherance of a drug crime. He was acquitted on others, including possession of a machinegun. The district court sentenced him to a total of 150 months’ imprisonment.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed challenges to the indictment’s timeliness, evidentiary rulings admitting certain rap lyrics, and the reasonableness of the sentence. The court held that there was no violation of the Speedy Trial Act or the Sixth Amendment, finding that necessary continuances were justified and adequately explained. The court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting limited rap lyric evidence, nor did it err in its application of sentencing enhancements or in declining a reduction for acceptance of responsibility. The court affirmed the convictions and the sentence imposed by the district court. View "United States v. Gladney" on Justia Law