Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Cedric Ray Jones pleaded guilty to charges including conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery and using and brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence. The conspiracy charge was the predicate for the firearm conviction under the residual clause of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). Jones waived his rights to challenge his convictions and sentences on direct appeal or through collateral attack as part of his plea agreement. After the Supreme Court struck down the residual clause of § 924(c) in United States v. Davis, Jones sought to vacate his § 924(c) conviction under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, but the district court ruled that his collateral attack was barred by his appeal waiver.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas denied Jones's motion to dismiss the firearm counts and later denied his § 2255 motion, concluding that the appeal waiver was enforceable. The court granted a certificate of appealability on whether the waiver barred his Davis claim and whether it was unenforceable under the miscarriage of justice exception. Jones argued that the waiver should not apply because it was too broad, unknowing, and that enforcing it would result in a miscarriage of justice.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and held that the appeal waiver was enforceable. The court rejected Jones's arguments, stating that the waiver was knowing and voluntary, and that the statutory-maximum exception did not apply. The court also declined to recognize a broad miscarriage-of-justice exception to the waiver. Consequently, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment, upholding the enforcement of the appeal waiver and denying Jones's request for relief based on the Davis decision. View "United States v. Jones" on Justia Law

Twin brothers Elijah and Kareem Muhammad were investigated for sex trafficking by the Fort Worth Police Department (FWPD) starting in 2018. Elijah was arrested in 2019 during a sting operation, and Kareem was arrested in 2023. The investigation revealed sex-trafficking activities dating back to 2011, involving multiple victims across several states. Concurrently, the FWPD and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) were investigating the brothers for fentanyl trafficking. In 2023, Elijah and Kareem were arrested for drug-related offenses, leading to their guilty pleas for possession with intent to distribute fentanyl and unlawful possession of ammunition, respectively.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas handled the initial cases. Both brothers signed plea agreements in which the government promised not to bring additional charges based on the conduct underlying their guilty pleas. However, after their guilty pleas, the government charged them with sex trafficking in a separate case. The district court denied their motions to dismiss the sex-trafficking charges, finding that the sex-trafficking conduct was distinct from the drug-related offenses in terms of time, location, and statutory violations.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the sex-trafficking conduct was temporally, geographically, and statutorily distinct from the drug-related conduct. The court found that the sex-trafficking activities spanned over a decade and involved multiple states and victims, whereas the drug-related offenses were confined to a specific period and location. Consequently, the court concluded that the government did not breach the plea agreements by prosecuting the brothers for sex trafficking. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "United States v. Muhammad" on Justia Law

In June 2021, the defendant, K.D., stole a car with a one-year-old child inside. She was arrested shortly after and found with the stolen items. K.D. admitted to taking the car and knowing the child was inside. She was charged with kidnapping, child abduction, and vehicle theft. K.D.'s defense counsel raised doubts about her competency, leading to evaluations that diagnosed her with a moderate intellectual disability. She was found incompetent to stand trial and was committed to the Porterville Developmental Center for treatment. After being declared competent in August 2022, K.D. requested developmental disability diversion.The Mendocino County Superior Court initially denied K.D.'s request for diversion, citing her lack of ties to the community, her criminal history, and concerns about her ability to comply with diversion requirements. The court also noted that K.D. had never received services from the regional center and had a history of probation violations. Despite acknowledging her developmental disability, the court concluded that her disability was not related to the charged offense and that she would not benefit from diversion.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Four, reviewed the case. The court found that the trial court had abused its discretion by not properly considering the relationship between K.D.'s developmental disability and the charged offense. The appellate court noted that the trial court failed to ensure that the regional center provided a proper report and diversion plan tailored to K.D.'s needs. The appellate court conditionally reversed the judgment and remanded the case for a new diversion eligibility hearing, instructing the trial court to comply with statutory requirements and consider whether K.D. would benefit from diversion. If K.D. satisfactorily completes diversion, the charges should be dismissed; otherwise, her conviction should be reinstated. View "People v. K.D." on Justia Law

Ronald Vines and his two adult sons attempted to rob a bank at gunpoint. They gathered weapons and other equipment, set up a tarp outside the bank, and waited for the tellers to arrive. One of Vines's sons, wearing a mask and armed with a revolver, forced a teller inside at gunpoint. However, another employee saw them and raised the alarm, causing Vines to signal his son to flee. They were apprehended by the police shortly after.Vines pleaded guilty to attempted armed bank robbery under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2113(d) & 2 and brandishing a gun while committing a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c)(1)(A)(ii) & 2. He did not initially challenge his § 924(c) charge, so he had to do so collaterally under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied his motion but granted a certificate of appealability. On appeal, Vines was allowed to argue that his plea lawyer was ineffective for not asserting that attempted armed bank robbery is not a crime of violence.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court held that attempted armed bank robbery under 18 U.S.C. § 2113(d) is a crime of violence because it requires the use of force, violence, or intimidation. The court also found that adding a dangerous weapon to the attempted bank robbery does not make the crime less violent. Therefore, Vines's conviction under § 924(c) was upheld. The court also concluded that Vines's counsel was not ineffective, as the argument that attempted armed bank robbery is not a crime of violence would have been meritless. The Third Circuit affirmed the District Court's order denying Vines's collateral attack. View "USA v. Vines" on Justia Law

Jacqusyn Grubb was charged with unlawful possession of a firearm as an unlawful user of a controlled substance under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3). Grubb moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that the statute violated his Second Amendment rights, particularly as he was a user of marijuana, not a more dangerous controlled substance. The government contended that Grubb's challenge was premature due to undeveloped facts.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa denied Grubb's motion to dismiss, ruling that the statute was constitutional on its face but held Grubb's as-applied challenge pending trial. The court rejected Grubb's request for an evidentiary hearing, stating it would amount to unauthorized discovery. Grubb then entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving his right to appeal the denial of his motion to dismiss. The district court later reconsidered and requested supplemental briefing but ultimately denied the motion to dismiss, concluding the statute was constitutional as applied to Grubb.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that a trial on the merits was necessary to resolve Grubb's pretrial motion to dismiss the indictment. The court emphasized that there is no summary judgment procedure in federal criminal cases and that the government is not required to present all its evidence before trial. The court concluded that the district court should have deferred ruling on the as-applied challenge until trial. Consequently, the Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's order, vacated the judgment, and remanded the case for further proceedings, allowing Grubb to choose whether to adhere to his guilty plea or proceed to trial. View "United States v. Grubb" on Justia Law

Between October 31, 2022, and February 9, 2023, several burglaries occurred in Sheridan County, Wyoming. Surveillance videos captured a suspect wearing a beanie, facemask, and hooded sweatshirt or silver puffer jacket, often holding a flashlight and leaving distinctive footprints. By mid-February 2023, the Sheridan County Sheriff’s office identified William Corey Holliday as a suspect. A search of his residence and vehicle revealed clothing and shoes matching those seen in the videos, and stolen items from the burglaries. Holliday was charged with 20 counts of burglary, later amended to 23 counts.The District Court of Sheridan County held a six-day trial beginning November 3, 2023. Approximately 50 witnesses testified. During the trial, the prosecutor referred to the person in the surveillance videos as “the Defendant” while questioning two witnesses. Defense counsel objected to one instance, and the court sustained the objection. The prosecutor later acknowledged the inadvertent use of the term and the court issued a curative instruction to the jury, emphasizing that the identity of the person in the videos was for the jury to decide. The jury found Holliday guilty of 15 counts and not guilty of 3 counts. He was sentenced to 5 to 10 years in prison for each count, to be served concurrently.The Supreme Court of Wyoming reviewed the case. Holliday argued that the prosecutor committed misconduct by vouching for the element of identity. The court held that while the prosecutor’s references were improper, they did not amount to prosecutorial misconduct. The court found that the overwhelming evidence against Holliday and the district court’s curative instructions mitigated any potential prejudice. The court affirmed Holliday’s convictions. View "Holliday v. The State of Wyoming" on Justia Law

Henry Lee Brown was involved in a fatal collision in 2021 while driving near his home in Minneapolis. After hitting and killing a pedestrian, Brown did not stop at the scene and drove home without notifying the police. He was charged with two counts of criminal vehicular homicide, including leaving the scene of a collision. Brown initially pled not guilty but later changed his plea to guilty for leaving the scene after causing the collision. He admitted to driving the vehicle and leaving the scene but claimed he was unconscious at the time of the collision due to a medical incident.The district court denied Brown's motion to withdraw his guilty plea and sentenced him to 58 months in prison. Brown appealed, arguing that the statute required the State to prove he was volitionally operating the vehicle at the time of the collision. The court of appeals affirmed the district court's decision, holding that the statute did not require volitional operation at the time of the collision.The Minnesota Supreme Court reviewed the case to determine whether the criminal vehicular homicide statute required proof of volitional operation at the time of the collision. The court concluded that the statute does not require an act of operation at the time of the collision. Instead, an act of operating a motor vehicle that takes place before a collision can satisfy the statute's requirements. The court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals on other grounds, holding that Brown's factual basis for his guilty plea was adequate because he admitted to volitionally operating the vehicle before losing consciousness, causing the pedestrian's death, and leaving the scene without returning. View "State v. Brown" on Justia Law

William Dexter Lucas was involved in schemes to fraudulently obtain small-business loans from the government and vehicle loans from private institutions. He pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit bank and wire fraud and waived his right to appeal. His presentence investigation report (PSR) included details of his fraudulent activities and mentioned allegedly fraudulent social security benefits he had been receiving. At sentencing, the district court ordered Lucas to pay restitution to both the private institutions and the Social Security Administration (SSA). Lucas appealed his sentence, challenging the restitution orders for the vehicle loans and social security benefits.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas initially handled the case. Lucas objected to the PSR's restitution calculations, arguing that the vehicle loans restitution was ordered to the wrong victim and incorrectly calculated, and that the social security benefits restitution was improper because he was entitled to the benefits and the alleged fraud was not part of the same scheme as the offenses in his indictment. The district court recalculated the vehicle loans restitution but upheld the SSA restitution, finding that Lucas's statement to the SSA was fraudulent and that the SSA fraud was part of the same conduct as the fraud alleged in the indictment.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the SSA restitution was erroneous because the SSA fraud was not part of the same scheme or conspiracy as the offenses in the indictment. The court affirmed the vehicle loans restitution, finding that Lucas's challenge to the calculation was barred by his appeal waiver and that the dealerships were proper victims. The court affirmed the vehicle loans restitution but vacated the SSA restitution award. View "United States v. Lucas" on Justia Law

Nathaniel Jacobs was found guilty by a jury of several drug and gun possession offenses, as well as witness tampering. The case began when Jacobs appeared at a hospital with a gunshot wound and admitted to police that he had accidentally shot himself with a firearm he was not legally allowed to possess. A search of his home revealed firearms, ammunition, and drug-related evidence, including methamphetamine and paraphernalia. Jacobs was indicted on multiple counts, including illegal possession of firearms, possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, and witness tampering.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana handled the initial proceedings. During pretrial, the court granted a government motion to exclude evidence of Jacobs’s girlfriend’s pending criminal charges, which Jacobs wanted to use to suggest her potential bias. The jury trial proceeded, and Jacobs was convicted on all counts.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. Jacobs raised two issues on appeal: a violation of his Sixth Amendment rights due to the district court's restriction on cross-examining his ex-girlfriend about her potential bias, and a Fourth Amendment challenge regarding the admission of drug evidence found in his home. The appellate court found that any potential Sixth Amendment violation was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt due to the overwhelming evidence against Jacobs. Additionally, the court determined that Jacobs had not shown good cause for failing to file a suppression motion regarding the drug evidence and that the search of the tobacco cans was within the scope of the warrant.The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment, upholding Jacobs’s convictions. View "United States v. Jacobs" on Justia Law

The case involves Early Willard Woodmore, III, who was convicted for his role in a methamphetamine distribution enterprise in eastern Oklahoma. The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) began investigating the Woodmore organization in 2018 after receiving a tip about methamphetamine shipments. Early Woodmore, along with his siblings Calvin and Amber, led the organization. They received methamphetamine from Kimberly Noel in California, who shipped the drugs concealed in everyday objects. The organization distributed the drugs in smaller quantities throughout eastern Oklahoma. Early Woodmore was arrested in April 2019 and continued to communicate with his sister Amber, who took over operations. The DEA intercepted a significant methamphetamine shipment in August 2019, leading to further charges.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma indicted Early Woodmore on five counts, including conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and money laundering. He proceeded to a joint trial with his brother Calvin in April 2022. The jury convicted Early Woodmore on all counts, and he was sentenced to life imprisonment for the drug charges and 240 months for the money laundering charges, to run concurrently.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. Early Woodmore raised three main challenges: judicial bias due to the district court's handling of a custody dispute during the trial, an erroneous jury instruction regarding the right of attorneys to interview witnesses, and the lack of a definitional instruction for "methamphetamine (actual)." The Tenth Circuit rejected all three challenges. The court found no judicial bias, upheld the jury instruction on attorney interviews, and determined that the term "methamphetamine (actual)" was sufficiently clear based on the evidence presented at trial. Consequently, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment of conviction. View "United States v. Woodmore" on Justia Law