Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant-Appellant David Shuck was charged with five counts: conspiracy to manufacture 100 or more marijuana plants; the manufacture of 100 or more marijuana plants; two counts of the use and maintenance of a place for the purpose of manufacturing marijuana; and possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. Defendant entered a conditional guilty plea on all five counts and was sentenced in 2012 to eighteen months. Defendant argued to the Tenth Circuit that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress, and that the district erred in denying his motion for an additional downward departure in sentencing. Finding no error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court. View "United States v. Shuck" on Justia Law

Defendant Abasi Baker was convicted on seven counts each of robbery affecting commerce, use of a firearm in relation to a crime of violence, and being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm. Defendant appealed his convictions, raising two arguments: (1) that use of a global-positioning-system (GPS) tracking device on his car violated his Fourth Amendment rights, and (2) that the evidence was insufficient to convict him on the eight firearms counts associated with the first four robberies. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit did not reach the merits of Defendant’s Fourth Amendment argument because he waived it by failing to raise it before trial. And the Court rejected Defendant’s argument that the evidence was insufficient for a rational jury to find that he possessed the identified firearm at the times charged. View "United States v. Baker" on Justia Law

Prisoner-Petitioner Gary Abernathy appealed a district court judgment which dismissed his petition for the writ of habeas corpus. On appeal to the Tenth Circuit, petitioner argued that the district court miscalculated his sentence based on an allegedly faulty interpretation of United States Supreme Court precedent in "Chambers v. United States" (555 U.S. 122 (2009)). Finding no error with the district court's calculation, the Tenth Circuit affirmed that court's judgment and dismissed Petitioner's petition for habeas relief. View "Abernathy v. Wandes" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Adrian Patterson was convicted by jury trial of a number of drug charges, including conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine. On appeal, Defendant raised a number of challenges to his conviction and sentence. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit concluded that none of the pretrial, trial, and sentencing claims had merit. As such, the Court held that (among other things) that the district court did not err in denying a competency hearing; declining to exclude evidence at trial on Fourth Amendment and hearsay grounds; conducting and instructing the jury; and sentencing Defendant. View "United States v. Patterson" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Joseph Benoit was convicted of receipt of child pornography and possession of child pornography for which he was sentenced to concurrent terms of 125 and 120 months' imprisonment and ordered to pay restitution. He challenged his convictions and sentence on multiple grounds, namely that: (1) the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained from a search of his computer; (2) conviction of receipt and possession of child pornography was a violation of Double Jeopardy; and (3) that the district court's restitution order was improper. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit agreed with Defendant's second contention, that possession was a lesser included offense of receipt in cases in which the same child pornography forms the basis of each charge. The Court also found that with regard to its restitution order, the district court did not explain whether specific losses suffered by the victim were proximately caused by Benoit's actions. The Tenth Circuit remanded the case for a redetermination of the portion of damages allocable to Defendant. The Court affirmed as to Defendant's numerous remaining claims. View "United States v. Benoit" on Justia Law

In August 2000, an Oklahoma state court jury convicted Petitioner-Appellant Clayton Lockett of 19 counts, including burglary, assault, rape, and first degree murder. He was sentenced to 2,285 years and 90 days of imprisonment for his non-capital crimes and sentenced to death for his murder conviction. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (OCCA) affirmed Appellant's convictions and sentence and later denied post-conviction relief. He then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus federal district court for the Western District of Oklahoma, challenging his conviction and death sentence on 15 grounds. The federal district court denied relief but granted a certificate of appealability (COA) on seven. Appellant petitioned the Tenth Circuit to grant a COA on three additional issues. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of habeas relief on all grounds, and denied Appellant's request for a COA on additional grounds. View "Lockett v. Workman" on Justia Law

Defendants Mark Rosalez, Juan Ruelas, and Justin Hernandez, all of whom were federal inmates at the time of their underlying crimes, were jointly tried and convicted by a jury of conspiracy to assault another inmate, and second-degree murder. All three defendants were sentenced to lengthy terms of imprisonment as a result of these convictions. Each defendant appealed his convictions, raising various claims of error at trial. Finding none, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the trial court's judgment for each defendant. View "United States v. Hernandez" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant George David Gordon was a former securities attorney convicted of multiple criminal charges relating to his alleged participation in a "pump-and-dump" scheme where he (along with others) violated the federal securities laws by artificially inflating the value of various stocks, then turning around and selling them for a substantial profit. The government restrained some of his property before the indictment was handed down and ultimately obtained criminal forfeiture of that property. On appeal, Defendant raised multiple issues relating to the validity of his conviction and sentence, and the propriety of the government’s conduct (both before and after trial) related to the forfeiture of his assets. In the end, the Tenth Circuit found no reversible error and affirmed Defendant's conviction and sentence, as well as the district court’s forfeiture orders. View "United States v. Gordon" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Kevin Loughrin was convicted of bank fraud and other charges arising from a check and identity theft scheme. He appealed his conviction on two grounds: (1) the district court’s jury instructions on the bank fraud counts were erroneous because they did not contain a requirement that defendant intended to defraud a bank; and (2) the delay between his indictment and trial violated his rights under the Speedy Trial Act. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit rejected both of defendant's grounds for appeal and affirmed his conviction. View "United States v. Loughrin" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Samuel Barajas was convicted by jury of conspiracy to distribute more than 500 grams of methamphetamine, aiding and abetting possession with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine, and using a communication facility (a cellular telephone) in committing, causing, and facilitating the conspiracy. Defendant was sentenced to life in prison on the first two counts, four years concurrent on Count 3, and to five years’ supervised release on Counts 1 and 2, and one year on Count 3, again to run concurrently. On appeal, he challenged the denial of his motion to suppress all evidence obtained from the wiretap surveillance and GPS pinging of certain cell phones. Finding no error at trial, the Tenth Circuit affirmed Defendant's convictions and sentences. View "United States v. Barajas" on Justia Law