Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant-Appellant Bruce Mabry was arrested for a parole violation. During the arrest, officers found a sawed-off shotgun and subsequently charged defendant with its possession. He moved to suppress the evidence of the weapon on the basis that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated by the search. The district court denied defendant's motion. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit concluded that the officers had a reasonable suspicion that defendant violated his parole. The Court affirmed the district court’s denial of defendant's motion to suppress on the basis that it was a valid search under the totality of the circumstances. View "United States v. Mabry" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Anthony Brooks was convicted of armed bank robbery. He appealed his conviction, arguing: (1) the evidence at trial was insufficient; (2) the district court erred by admitting DNA evidence linking him to the crime scene; (3) the district court abused its discretion when it refused to strike testimony of the government’s expert witness; (4) the district court abused its discretion by allowing the government to introduce evidence that Brooks possessed large amounts of cash several months following the robbery; and (5) the district court abused its discretion by denying Brooks’s motion for a new trial based on alleged juror misconduct. Finding no error or abuse of discretion, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "United States v. Brooks" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Ramiro Avila was charged with possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute. After the district court denied Defendant's motion to suppress, he entered an unconditional guilty plea to the charge. Defendant contended that his plea was not knowing and voluntary because it was induced by the district court’s statement that he would "still have a right to an appeal" if the court accepted his plea. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit held that when a court chooses to instruct a defendant that he has a right to appeal following the entry of an unconditional guilty plea, the court materially misinforms the defendant regarding the consequences of his plea when it fails further to advise him that the plea may limit that right. Under such circumstances, if the court tells defendant without qualification that he has a right to appeal, a defendant’s plea is not knowing and voluntary. View "United States v. Avila" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Brian McKye was charged with eight counts of securities fraud and one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering. The district court refused to give the jury his tendered instruction that would have permitted the jury to decide whether the investment notes at issue were securities under federal securities law. He was convicted and received a 262-month sentence. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit concluded the district court erred by not giving the tendered instruction, and reversed the convictions. View "United States v. McKye" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Alfred Anaya was indicted on one count of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute cocaine, methamphetamine ("meth"), and marijuana; and on two counts of intimidation of federal witnesses. A jury convicted him on the conspiracy charges related to cocaine and meth and on both counts of intimidation. The district court sentenced him to 292 months in prison for the conspiracy count and 240 months for the intimidation counts, to run concurrently. Defendant argued on appeal (1) insufficiency of the evidence on conspiracy, (2) prosecutorial misconduct, (3) an erroneous willful blindness instruction, and (4) cumulative error. Finding the evidence sufficient to support his convictions, and no error at trial, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "United States v. Anaya" on Justia Law

Mark Brooks and Marcus Quinn were arrested in a large Kansas City–area drug distribution operation. They were charged with and convicted of various drug conspiracy charges and sentenced to thirty-five years’ and thirty years’ imprisonment, respectively. They appealed their sentences, arguing that the district court committed many trial and sentencing errors. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit found no reversible error. Furthermore, the Court also concluded that both sentences were procedurally and substantively reasonable. View "United States v. Brooks" on Justia Law

While serving a long sentence in state prison for a series of armed robberies, John Grant won a job as a kitchen worker. Grant was soon fired after he was caught fighting with another inmate. He came to bear a grudge against Gay Carter, his supervisor. One morning after breakfast, Grant lingered in the dining hall. Ms. Carter passed near him and he grabbed her, put a hand over her mouth, and dragged her into a small closet and stabbed Ms. Carter sixteen times. The State of Oklahoma charged Mr. Grant with first degree murder and sought the death penalty. The jury found Mr. Grant guilty, and he was later sentenced to death. After the state Supreme Court denied relief, Mr. Grant filed a habeas petition in federal court, but the district court denied relief. The district court issued Grant a certificate of appealability that allowed him to bring this case to the Tenth Circuit. Ultimately the Tenth Circuit agreed with the state courts and federal district court, and denied Grant's request for relief. View "Grant v. Trammel" on Justia Law

Defendant Robbie Naramor pled guilty to mailing a threatening communication to a state judge. With no plea agreement to consider, the district court varied upward from the sentencing range calculated under the United States Sentencing Guidelines and sentenced Defendant to 60 months’ imprisonment, the statutory maximum. Defendant appealed the sentence, arguing: (1) that the district court erred in using a prior state conviction to calculate his criminal-history category; (2) the court erred in permitting the government to withdraw a motion to award Defendant a reduction to his offense level for acceptance of responsibility; (3) his sentence was procedurally unreasonable; and (4) the sentence was substantively unreasonable. Finding no error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "United States v. Naramor" on Justia Law

Defendant Edwin Sanchez, Sr. appealed his conviction on one count of possession with intent to distribute 100 kilograms or more of marijuana. He received a 78-month sentence. Defendant argued: (1) there were factual errors in the search-warrant affidavit, thereby entitling him to suppression of the evidence obtained in the search; (2) the telephone records should not have been admitted as evidence because they were unfairly prejudicial; (3) the district court erred by denying him a sentencing adjustment; (4) the court’s finding that he gave perjured testimony during trial was not sufficiently independent of the jury’s verdict to support a sentence enhancement for obstruction of justice; and (5) his sentence was substantively unreasonable. Finding that all of defendant's assignments of error lacked merit, the Tenth Circuit affirmed his conviction and sentence. View "United States v. Sanchez" on Justia Law

A Kansas State Trooper monitoring traffic along I-70 spotted a minivan driving with a temporary out-of-state license tag. He called the tag in to dispatch to check its validity. When the dispatcher returned a "negatory on record, not returning," the trooper stopped the minivan. After receiving permission to search the vehicle, the trooper found over a pound of methamphetamine in a secret compartment inside the passenger area. Defendant was arrested, tried and convicted on federal drug charges. Defendant moved to suppress evidence of the drugs found in the van claiming the trooper lacked probable cause to stop him. The Tenth Circuit and other courts have regularly upheld traffic stops based on information that the defendant's vehicle's registration failed to appear in a law enforcement databases. But in this case, the database's reliability was called into question. When the trooper asked about the minivan's temporary tag, the dispatcher replied not only that the tag yielded a "no return" response from the queried database, adding that "Colorado [the out-of-state tag in question here] temp tags usually don't return." Without more than the database query, defendant argued the trooper lacked probable cause to stop him. The Tenth Circuit found that the district court failed to engage in an analysis of the evidence that was presented at trial that called the database into question. Accordingly, the Court reversed the conviction and remanded the case back to the district court for further proceedings. View "United States v. Esquivel-Rio" on Justia Law