Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant-Appellant Larry Eugene Hodge appealed the district court's order denying his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). Finding no error or abuse of discretion, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "United States v. Hodge" on Justia Law

Raul Roger Orona, Jr., appealed his conviction and sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm. Orona was sentenced to 198 months' imprisonment under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA). He argued on appeal to the Tenth Circuit that the use of a juvenile adjudication as a predicate offense for ACCA purposes violated his Eighth Amendment rights. The Tenth Circuit concluded after review that Orona did not establish his constitutional rights were violated by the sentence. Accordingly, the Court affirmed. View "United States v. Orona" on Justia Law

The Tenth Circuit found no error in the district court's rejection of Defendant Francisco Chavez's request to serve his federal and state sentences for methamphetamine smuggling concurrently instead of consecutively. View "United States v. Chavez" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Jason Courtney brought a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action against an Oklahoma State Trooper and the State of Oklahoma based on a traffic stop. He was arrested for being a felon in possession of a firearm as a result of that stop. Plaintiff alleged the trooper violated his constitutional rights by unreasonably extending the scope of the stop and arresting him without probable cause. The district court ruled in favor of the State and the trooper; on appeal, the Tenth Circuit concluded the trooper was entitled to qualified immunity from suit with regard to extending the scope of the traffic stop. However, the Court reversed the grant of immunity with regard to Plaintiff's claims of unlawful arrest without probable cause. Furthermore, the Court reversed the grant of summary judgment to the State on Plaintiff's claims for false arrest, conversion, assault and battery. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Courtney v. Oklahoma" on Justia Law

The issue before the Tenth Circuit in this case was whether a settlement agreement between the parties waived the State's "Eleventh Amendment" right not to be sued in federal court. After review of the settlement agreement, the Tenth Circuit concluded that the language of the settlement was not explicit, its reference to bringing suit in federal court had no other reasonable construction except as a waiver. Therefore, the settlement contained a waiver of that right. View "Pettigrew v.Oklahoma" on Justia Law

The issue on appeal before the Tenth Circuit in this case was whether the district court's decision at the original sentencing for Defendant Travis Boyd granting a downward departure of his criminal-history category was an "application decision" that remained "unaffected" with regard to the federal sentencing guidelines, or whether the departure should have been disregarded in calculating the ultimate sentence. Upon review, the Court held it should have been disregarded. View "United States v. Boyd" on Justia Law

Robert Clifton Tanner was charged with four counts of mail fraud. He entered into an agreement where he agreed to plead guilty to one count for which he would receive a stipulated sentence of 30 months' imprisonment. The district court accepted the plea and sentenced Tanner to the agreed 30 months. As part of the agreement, Tanner waived his right to appeal unless the punishment imposed was greater than the parties had agreed. Despite this waiver and the imposition of the agreed sentence, Tanner appealed, claiming his sentence was illegal. The government moved to enforce the appeal waiver. The Tenth Circuit granted the government's motion. View "United States v. Tanner" on Justia Law

Deputy defendant Johnny Barrientos of the Dona Ana County Sheriff's Department appealed a district court's denial of his motion for summary judgment in a 28 U.S.C. 1983 action brought by Lucia Fancher, individually and on behalf of the estate of her son, Nick Dominguez. Fancher alleges Barrientos used excessive force when he shot Dominguez seven times following a confrontation. Dominguez died as a result of one or more gunshot wounds. Barrientos argued he was entitled to qualified immunity because his use of deadly force was objectively reasonable and did not violate clearly established law. The district court granted Barrientos's motion for summary judgment to the extent Fancher's claim arose from the firing of the initial shot, but denied the motion to the extent the claim arose from the subsequent six. The Tenth Circuit concluded after its review that it lacked jurisdiction to hear two of the three arguments Barrientos raised on appeal. The Court was unpersuaded by Barrientos' third argument. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the denial of his motion for summary judgment. View "Fancher v. Barrientos, et al" on Justia Law

Defendant Jesse Nicholson appealed the denial of his motion to suppress evidence. He entered a conditional guilty plea to three drug and weapons-related charges. Defendant was pulled over by Roswell police for being "insufficiently cautious" in making a left turn into a business' parking lot. Defendant argued that the officer lacked probable cause to pull him over, and therefore the drugs, drug paraphernalia and weapons police recovered from a search of his vehicle were obtained illegally. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit reversed the district court's ruling on defendant's motion to suppress, and remanded the case with directions to vacated defendant's convictions. View "United States v. Nicholson" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Oliver Rojas appealed the grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants Kenneth Anderson and Nicholas Wilson. Plaintiff brought claims against defendants, both police officers, under 42 U.S.C. 1983 following his arrest for attempting to assault one of the officers. Plaintiff was stopped when he was struggling to enter a house at three o'clock in the morning. Plaintiff told the officers he lived there (and showed that his driver's license listed the house's address), but the officers elected to take Plaintiff to a detoxification center due to his inebriated state. Plaintiff refused to comply with the officer's orders, and made an effort to free his arm from one of the officers' grasp; the officer construed this act as an attempt to hit him. Defendants handcuffed Plaintiff, and according to Plaintiff, after he had been removed from the patrol car with his hands and feet tied, Defendants picked him up and dropped him face-first onto the asphalt, causing him to split open his chin and fracture his jaw. The district court concluded that defendants' act of dropping plaintiff did not violate plaintiff's constitutional rights and therefore granted summary judgment in their favor. Finding no error in the district court's decision, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the grant of summary judgment. View "Rojas, et al v. Anderson, et al" on Justia Law