Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant Richard Basnett, was convicted of unlawful possession of a firearm and sentenced to 37 months of imprisonment (with 2 years of supervised release). He appealed his conviction and sentence, arguing that the sentence was too long. When the trial court imposed the sentence, it relied on guidelines governing possession of at least eight firearms and possession of firearms in connection with a separate felony. On appeal, the issue before the Tenth Circuit was whether the district court had enough evidence to reasonably infer defendant possessed: (1) eight or more guns (other than antiques or those owned solely for hunting or collecting); and (2) at least one gun in connection with a separate felony. After careful consideration of the trial court record, the Court concluded that the government had sufficient evidence to draw these inferences. View "United States v. Basnett" on Justia Law

Defendant Vicki Dillard Crowe was convicted by a jury on eight counts of mail fraud, and eight counts of wire fraud for her participation in a mortgage fraud scheme. The district court sentenced defendant to sixty months' imprisonment and was ordered her to make restitution. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court erred in calculating the amount of loss associated with her crimes for purposes of U.S.S.G. 2B1.1(b), and in denying her motion for new trial, which alleged ineffective assistance on the part of her trial counsel. Defendant's challenge to the district court's calculation of loss raised an issue of first impression for the Tenth Circuit: whether the concept of reasonable foreseeability applied to a district court’s calculation of the "credits against loss" under 2B1.1(b). The Court adopted the Second Circuit’s reasoning in "United States v. Turk," (626 F.3d 743 (2d Cir. 2010)), and held that the concept of reasonable foreseeability applies only to a district court's calculation of "actual loss" under 2B1.1(b), and not to its calculation of the "credits against loss." The Court affirmed defendant's sentence. View "United States v. Crowe" on Justia Law

Petitioner Benjamin Cole was convicted of one count of first degree murder of a child (his nine-month-old daughter), for which he was sentenced to death. He appealed the district court's denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. After careful consideration of the trial court record, the Tenth Circuit found no reversible error and affirmed the denial of petitioner's request for habeas relief. View "Cole v. Trammell" on Justia Law

Defendant Philbert Rentz fired a single gunshot that wounded one victim and killed another. He was charged with two separate counts of using a firearm during a crime of violence. Defendant moved to dismiss the second count. The district court granted his motion, holding that the applicable statute under which defendant was charged could not support multiple charges arising from a single use of a firearm. The Government appealed the pre-trial dismissal of the second count. Finding that the trial court erred in dismissing the second count, the Tenth Circuit reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Rentz" on Justia Law

Defendant Germain Harris was convicted on federal weapons and drugs charges stemming from the arrest and conviction of Alonzo Johnson for the contract killing of a Tulsa businessman. Harris challenged his convictions, arguing the district court should have suppressed evidence found at his auto shop or granted his motion for a new trial. Specifically, Harris argued the warrant was constitutionally defective on its fact, and as such, the subsequent search of his shop by law enforcement was a violation of his rights. After careful consideration of the district court record, the Tenth Circuit concluded the warrant was not defective, and that the district court did not err in denying his motion. Accordingly, the Court affirmed Harris' conviction. View "United States v. Harris" on Justia Law

Defendant Eni Oyegoke-Eniola challenged his sentence following his guilty plea to charges of mail fraud, and making a false statement on an immigration document. He raised four errors on appeal: (1) that the district court improperly imposed enhancements under the Sentencing Guidelines; (2) that Defendant's statements made under an immunity agreement should have been stricken from the Presentence Investigation Report (PSR); (3) that the court imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence; and (4) that the court failed to rule on some of Defendant's objections to the PSR. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit concluded that Defendant's first claim was meritorious with respect to two enhancements and therefore vacated the sentence and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Oyegoke-Eniola" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Reydecel Chavez, a Mexican native, was charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm, being an illegal alien in possession of a firearm, and reentry of a removed alien. He appealed the district court's order permitting the government to involuntarily medicate him pursuant to "United States v. Sell," (539 U.S. 166 (2003)), in order to make him competent to stand trial. Finding that the government did not satisfy all of the "Sell" requirements, the Tenth Circuit reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "United States v. Chavez" on Justia Law

Defendants-Appellants William Pickard and Clyde Apperson appealed the district court’s decision to deny their motion to unseal the Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”)’s file on one of its confidential informants. Upon review of the matter, the Tenth Circuit concluded the district court erred in the manner in which it denied Defendants’ motion to unseal the file: (1) by failing to require the United States to articulate a significant interest in continuing to keep the DEA records sealed; (2) by not applying the presumption that judicial records should be open to the public; and (3) by not considering whether unsealing a redacted version of the DEA records would adequately serve the as yet unarticulated government interest in keeping the records sealed. For these three reasons, the Court reversed the district court’s decision to deny Defendants’ motion to unseal the records and remanded the case for the district court’s further consideration of that motion. View "United States v. Pickard" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Michael Lynn Cash was pulled over after police observed him commit a traffic violation. During the stop, police saw in plain view an artificial bladder device. He also learned that defendant was on the way to take a drug test for his federal probation officer. Suspecting that defendant was planning on using the device to defeat a urine drug test, police detained him until another officer arrived at the scene. Shortly after the second officer arrived, police observed a firearm in plain view in the back seat of defendant's car. A scuffle ensued in an effort to take defendant into custody and to render the firearm safe. Defendant was eventually subdued and placed in the back of the police cruiser. He was not given Miranda warnings. Officers conducted an inventory search of defendant's vehicle and found methamphetamine, Lortab, and used syringes. A federal grand jury ultimately indicted defendant on three counts: possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, and as a felon in possession of firearm. Defendant moved to suppress both (1) the physical evidence obtained from the search and (2) his statements to the officers while he was seated in the back of the police cruiser. The district court denied both motions, holding that neither defendant's Fourth nor Fifth Amendment rights were violated. A jury convicted defendant on all counts. He appealed the district court's denial of both motions to suppress. Finding no error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "United States v. Cash" on Justia Law

Julio Ponce appealed an Oklahoma district court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained pursuant to a search warrant that Ponce claimed issued without probable cause. A federal grand jury charged Ponce with: (1) Possession of Methamphetamine with Intent to Distribute; (2) Possession of Firearms and Ammunition by an Alien Illegally in the United States; and (3) Maintaining Drug Involved Premises. Ponce moved to suppress the evidence officers seized at his home, arguing that the affidavit supporting the warrant contained “nothing of consequence . . . to provide the necessary probable cause to search [Ponce]’s home.” After his suppression motion was denied, Ponce pled guilty to all three counts of the indictment pursuant to a conditional plea agreement reserving the right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress. Ponce was sentenced to seventy-eight months of imprisonment. The Tenth Circuit concluded that the executing officers acted in good-faith reliance upon the warrant to search Ponce’s home, and therefore that the district court properly denied Ponce’s motion to suppress the evidence against him. View "United States v. Ponce" on Justia Law