Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, appellant Bill Melot was convicted of one count of endeavoring to impede the administration of the Internal Revenue Code, one count of attempting to evade or defeat tax, six counts of willful failure to file, and seven counts of making false statements to the Department of Agriculture. He was sentenced to sixty months' imprisonment, which represented a significant downward variance from the advisory guidelines range of 210-262 months. He was also ordered to pay restitution to the IRS. On appeal, Melot argued the Government presented insufficient evidence of willfulness to support his convictions and erred in the calculating the tax loss and the amount of restitution. Upon careful consideration of the record of this case, the Tenth Circuit affirmed Melot's convictions, but reversed his sentence for recalculation. View "United States v. Melot" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Kent LeBere was convicted for second-degree murder and second-degree arson. He received a 60-year sentence. He applied for habeas relief, arguing the State relied on perjured testimony and withheld potentially exculpatory evidence material to his defense. The only question presented to the Tenth Circuit on appeal was whether federal courts could consider his claim. After LeBere began serving his sentence and while his direct appeal was pending, Ronnie Archuleta, a key witness against him, recanted his testimony. LeBere promptly moved for a new trial based upon that newly discovered evidence. His new trial motion became a collateral part of his direct appeal and, after a hearing, it was denied. LeBere then brought this habeas petition expressly claiming, for the first time, a "Brady" violation based on the undisclosed acts of a detective who allegedly encouraged Archuleta to lie at the trial. The district judge abated these habeas proceedings to permit LeBere to exhaust his new claim in the state courts. He then filed a petition for post-conviction relief with the Colorado trial court asserting his "Brady" claim. The petition was not decided on the merits; post-conviction relief was denied because the Brady claim was, sub silento, part of his newly discovered evidence claim, which was addressed and decided on direct appeal. Furthermore, the Brady issue was not considered to have been procedurally barred because it was not timely raised, it was considered to have been subsumed in the new trial motion and, in effect, decided when the new trial motion was denied. Under Colorado procedures it could not be revisited in post-conviction proceedings (successive bar). LeBere returned to federal court with the Brady claim; the district judge concluded it was procedurally barred by Colorado's successive bar rule. LeBere contended on appeal to the Tenth Circuit that Colorado's successive bar has no effect on the availability of habeas review of his particular claims. The Tenth Circuit concluded LeBere was correct and reversed. View "Lebere v. Abbott, et al" on Justia Law

At a joint trial, a jury acquitted Defendant-Appellant Olalekan Rufai and Adedayo Adegboye of one count of conspiracy to commit health care fraud, and convicted them of five counts of aiding and abetting health care fraud. The government and defendant agreed that an unindicted third party knowingly filed fraudulent claims on behalf of a medical equipment company set up by defendants. Defendant Rufai argued on appeal that the trial evidence was insufficient to show that he knowingly and willfully participated in the fraud. Upon careful consideration of the trial court record, the Tenth Circuit agreed with defendant and reversed his convictions on all counts. View "United States v. Rufai" on Justia Law

Following a joint trial with Co-Defendant Olalekan Rufai, a jury convicted Defendant-Appellant Adedayo Adegboye of five counts of aiding and abetting health care fraud. On appeal, appellant argued that the trial evidence was insufficient to establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he knowingly and willfully participated in the fraud. Finding the evidence admitted at trial was sufficient to support his convictions, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "United States v. Adegboye" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Sergio Alvarez was charged with one count of possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine and one count of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine. He pled guilty to the possession with intent to distribute charge, but he refused to plead guilty to the related conspiracy count and was convicted after trial. The sole issue on appeal was whether the district court erred when it denied him an offense-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility under U.S.S.G. 3E1.1. Finding no error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "United States v. Alvarez" on Justia Law

Appellant Tyre S. Haggerty pled guilty to one count of possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance, and one count of possession of a firearm by a previously convicted felon. He appealed the convictions, arguing his seventy-two-month sentence was procedurally unreasonable because the district court failed to consider the criteria in United States Sentencing Guidelines for a one-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility. Both appellant and the government sought reversal and remand of the judgment, with directions for the district court to grant or deny the reduction based on its consideration of the Guidelines. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit agreed appellant should be resentenced, and remanded to the district court. View "United States v. Haggerty" on Justia Law

Following a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of two counts of using fire to commit a felony, and two counts of arson. He was sentenced to 430 months’ imprisonment. Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence, arguing among other things, that the sentence violated his Eighth Amendment rights. Finding no abuse of the trial court’s discretion, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "United States v. Tolliver" on Justia Law

Defendant Rocky Eugene Dodd was convicted on two counts of first-degree murder in Oklahoma state court and received two death sentences. Defendant made an 28 U.S.C. 2254 application for relief at the federal district court; all fifteen claims in his application were denied. He appealed the denial of four claims: (1) that the evidence of guilt was insufficient to sustain his convictions; (2) that the trial court denied him the rights to present a complete defense and confront witnesses when it excluded evidence that somebody else had committed the murders; (3) that prosecutorial misconduct denied him a fair trial; and (4) that testimony by the victims’ relatives recommending the death penalty violated the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment. The Tenth Circuit affirmed denial of relief on the first three claims, but reversed the fourth. Accordingly, the case was remanded to the district court with instructions to grant relief on Defendant’s sentences, subject to the State’s right to resentence him within a reasonable time. View "Dodd v. Workman" on Justia Law

Two petitions for habeas relief arising from the murder conviction and death sentence of Michael Howell were before the Tenth Circuit. Howell's first petition came before the Court in 2002. After the Supreme Court ruled that states could not impose capital punishment on persons with mental impairments, the Court abated the petition and allowed Howell to pursue a mental-disability challenge to his sentence in state court. In 2005, a state court jury found that Howell was not mentally retarded Howell then filed a second petition, alleging seventeen grounds for relief, in addition to the five grounds remaining from his first petition that were never considered the Court. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit concluded that Howell was not entitled to habeas relief on either petition. View "Howell v. Trammell" on Justia Law

Defendant David Glen Heard pled guilty to two counts under Oklahoma’s lewd molestation statute. In pleading guilty, defendant admitted that he positioned himself in a Tulsa Wal-Mart store so as to be able to "look under [children's] clothes at [their] bod[ies] and at [their] undergarments." Pursuant to the plea agreement, the prosecutor recommended that defendant receive concurrent twenty-five- year prison terms. Soon after he was sentenced, defendant discovered an unpublished case out of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (OCCA), which cast doubt upon whether defendant's conduct fell within the ambit of the statute. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit agreed with defendant that his attorney provided ineffective assistance in failing to advise him of viable defenses to the charges against him, and the record was clear that, but for counsel’s deficient performance, defendant would not have pled guilty to these offenses. The Court reversed the district court’s denial of defendant's habeas petition and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Heard v. Addison" on Justia Law