Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant Joey Ruby was on supervised release following a conviction for being a felon in possession of a gun. One of the conditions of his supervised release was that Ruby not commit any other crimes. He was unable to adhere to that condition, and was convicted of third-degree assault in Colorado state court. As a result, the district court revoked Defendant's release and sentenced him to eighteen months' imprisonment. Defendant appealed the sentence on the grounds that the district court erred in considering hearsay testimony at sentencing from three witnesses to the assault. Because the Tenth Circuit concluded the district court did not err in considering the testimony, the Court affirmed the district court's sentence. View "United States v. Ruby" on Justia Law

Defendant Derrick Reuben Smith was convicted by a jury on one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud in relation to real estate mortgages. The district court declared a mistrial as to four other counts on which the jury could not reach a verdict, and later dismissed these counts without prejudice. At sentencing, the district court calculated an advisory sentencing range of thirty-seven to forty-six months' imprisonment. The court then sentenced Defendant to forty months' imprisonment and ordered payment of restitution. On appeal, Defendant objected to the district court’s dismissal of the mistried counts without, rather than with, prejudice. He also raised two challenges to the district court's calculation of actual loss in its determination of the applicable sentencing range. Finding no error in the district court's judgment, the Tenth Circuit affirmed Defendant's conviction and sentence. View "United States v. Smith" on Justia Law

A jury found Defendant Timothy McGlothin guilty of possession of a firearm by a felon. On appeal he argued the district court erred in admitting at trial evidence of past instances in which he possessed a firearm. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit concluded that Defendant forfeited these arguments by failing to properly raise them before the district court and could not satisfy the exacting plain-error standard. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the district court's judgment of conviction. View "United States v. McGlothin" on Justia Law

Defendant Terrence Rutland was convicted in federal district court on robbery, narcotics, and firearm charges. Defendant contended his federal conviction for robbery and use of a firearm during a violent felony were invalid, arguing that the robbery of a drug dealer operating from his home was not a matter of interstate commerce because he was not engaged in a business. Defendant also claimed the district court erred by admitting numerous out-of-court statements as coconspirator statements when there was insufficient evidence of a conspiracy. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit concluded a drug dealer's home business is part of interstate commerce, and the jurisdictional provisions of the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. 1951, applied to Defendant's crimes. The Court also found no reversible error in the district court's evidentiary rulings. View "United States v. Rutland" on Justia Law

Defendants-Appellants Dr. Stephen and Linda Schneider were convicted of several counts of unlawful drug distribution, health care fraud, and money laundering, arising from their operation of a medical clinic. The district court sentenced Dr. Schneider to 360 months’ imprisonment, and his wife to 396 months’ imprisonment. The Schneiders appealed their convictions, alleging that: (1) they were denied the right to conflict-free representation; (2) the district court erroneously admitted expert testimony; (3) the district court improperly instructed the jury; and (4) there was insufficient evidence to support the charge of health care fraud resulting in death. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit concluded that: (1)the Schneiders waived their right to conflict-free representation; (2) the expert testimony was properly admitted; (3) there was no error in the district court's jury instructions; and (4) the evidence admitted was sufficient to support the health care fraud charge. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the district court and the Schneiders' respective sentences. View "United States v. Schneider, et al" on Justia Law

Pro se Defendant-Appellant Gregory Graham was previously convicted of distributing crack cocaine and sentenced under a plea agreement to 25 years' incarceration. The district court denied his motion for a sentence reduction. On appeal, Defendant contended his sentence should have been reduced in light of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 (FSA) and Amendment 750 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines. Finding that Defendant's sentence was based solely on his plea agreement rather than any Guideline sentencing range, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. View "United States v. Graham" on Justia Law

Petitioner Ronald Lott was convicted by an Oklahoma jury of two counts of first-degree murder in December 2001. The murders were committed over twenty-five years ago. The state trial court sentenced Petitioner to death on both counts in accordance with the jury's verdict. After a direct appeal and application for state post-conviction relief, Petitioner sought federal habeas relief. The federal district court denied the petition. Petitioner was granted a certificate of appealability with respect to several issues, which he appealed to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. In an opinion over one-hundred pages long, the Tenth Circuit affirmed: "The only clear constitutional error that occurred at Lott's trial was the admission of the improper victim impact evidence. However, that error, standing alone, does not implicate cumulative-error analysis. And even if we were to assume the existence of additional constitutional errors, we cannot say, having exhaustively examined the record on appeal, that Lott's trial was "so infected . . . with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction[s] [or sentences] a denial of due process." View "Lott v. Trammell" on Justia Law

In a direct criminal appeal, Defendant-Appellant Enrique De La Cruz challenged the district court’s decision to deny his motion to suppress evidence the United States obtained during an investigative seizure. ICE agents detained Petitioner while looking for another person they believed to be in the United States illegally. Upon review of his fake identification card, agents discovered that Petitioner was himself unlawfully in the United States after having been previously deported. On that basis, the agents arrested him. A federal grand jury indicted Petitioner for unlawfully reentering the United States after a previous deportation. Petitioner moved to suppress the evidence agents obtained from him arguing that, at the time the agents asked him for his identification, they were no longer justified in detaining him because the agents no longer had reasonable suspicion to believe that he was involved in criminal activity. After conducting an evidentiary hearing, the district court denied Petitioner's motion. He then entered a conditional guilty plea, see Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(a)(2), reserving the right to appeal the district court’s suppression ruling. Upon review of the matter, the Tenth Circuit concluded that the Government failed to establish that an objective officer would have had reasonable suspicion to believe that Petitioner was involved in criminal activity once the agents determined that he was not the original person they were looking for and before Petitioner provided the agents with the false identification card. The Court reversed the district court’s decision denying Petitioner's suppression motion and remanded this case to the district court for further proceedings. View "United States v. De La Cruz" on Justia Law

Petitioner Christopher Holyfield appealed a district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion for relief from judgment. In his motion, Petitioner asserted he received ineffective assistance of counsel when counsel failed to challenge on appeal the district court's use of a 1998 California conviction to sentence him to life imprisonment under the provisions of 21 U.S.C. 841(b)(1)(A). In particular, Petitioner contended his attorney should have argued his 1998 conviction was not final at the time Petitioner committed the violation of section 841(a)(1). Upon review, the Tenth Circuit affirmed: "[w]hen [Petitioner] violated section 841, the 1998 conviction was no longer subject to examination on direct appeal. . . . Thus, [Petitioner] committed a violation of section 841 after his 1998 conviction became final." View "United States v. Holyfield" on Justia Law

Petitioner-Appellant Emmanuel Littlejohn was convicted of two robbery-related charges and a charge of first-degree murder, arising from his role in a 1992 robbery of a convenience store in Oklahoma City. He received extended prison sentences on the robbery charges and a death sentence on the murder charge. Petitioner filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, claiming (relevantly) that his murder conviction and death sentence were obtained in violation of his constitutional rights. The district court denied all relief and Petitioner appealed on multiple grounds. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment on all grounds except for Petitioner's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel at the penalty phase and cumulative error. As to the ineffective-assistance claim, the Court reversed the judgment and remanded the case to the district court, with directions to conduct an evidentiary hearing and any further appropriate proceedings consistent with the Court's opinion. Additionally, because the resolution of Petitioner's cumulative-error claim could have been affected by the district court’s determination of his ineffective-assistance claim, the Court declined to address the merits of Petitioner's contentions concerning cumulative error. Instead, the Court directed the district court to vacate that portion of its judgment and to reconsider the cumulative-error claim. View "Littlejohn v. Workman" on Justia Law