Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Petitioner-Appellant Alvin Valenzuela, an enrolled member of the Tohono O’odham Nation filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus seeking relief from tribal court convictions and his sentence. While Petitioner's petition was pending in federal district court, he completed his sentence and was released from prison. The district court concluded that Petitioner's claims were moot because of his release. Alternatively, it concluded that Petitioner had failed to exhaust his tribal remedies before seeking habeas relief in federal court. Based on these alternative grounds, the district court dismissed the petition. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit affirmed on the ground that Mr. Valenzuela failed to exhaust his tribal court remedies and remanded the case for the district court to dismiss his petition without prejudice. View "Valenzuela v. Silversmith, et al" on Justia Law

Following a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of possessing more than 100 kilograms of marijuana with the intent to distribute. He was sentenced to sixty months' imprisonment followed by four years of supervised release, and he appealed. Defendant argued to the Tenth Circuit that the district court violated his Sixth Amendment confrontation rights when it refused to allow him to cross-examine a witness about a prior judicial determination that the witness was not credible. Considering the "Van Arsdall" factors, the Court concluded there was at least a "reasonable probability" the jury would have reached a different conclusion had the jury not believed the inspector smelled the strong smell of marijuana when Defendant opened the trailer doors, or if the impeachment value of the cross-examination had been fully realized: "At the very least, the government [did] not meet its extraordinary burden of proving the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt." Accordingly, Defendant's conviction was reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Woodard" on Justia Law

The issue before the Tenth Circuit in this case centered on whether a judgment has been "entered on the criminal docket" for purposes of Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(6) if it is noted only on an internal district court document that is not publicly accessible. Following sentencing of Defendant-Appellant Francisco Mendoza, the district court filed a sealed judgment on a document labeled "Criminal Docket . . .Internal Use Only." The criminal docket available to the public contained no indication that judgment was ever entered. Upon review, the Court concluded that this procedure did not satisfy Rule 4(b)(6): "Dockets and docket sheets have traditionally been considered public documents. Consistent with a centuries-long history of public access to dockets, we hold that the phrase 'entered on the criminal docket' contemplates public notation that judgment has been entered. Entry on a list of filings maintained for internal court use and inaccessible to the public does not qualify under the ordinary meaning of Rule 4(b)(6)." View "United States v. Mendoza" on Justia Law

After Defendant Austin Alan Ray was arrested for downloading child pornography using peer-to-peer file-sharing software, he pled guilty in federal district court to receiving material involving the sexual exploitation of a minor. This appeal presented the question whether the district court could properly apply a two-level sentencing enhancement for the distribution of child pornography under USSG section 2G2.2(b)(3)(F) when the record indicated only that Defendant used the peer-to-peer file-sharing software and that its sharing function was enabled, but not that Defendant actually knew his software was capable of sharing files. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit held that the guideline was properly applied. The Court also rejected Defendant’s claims that the district court unconstitutionally made findings for sentencing enhancements under a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard, that the court erred procedurally at sentencing, and that the sentence was substantively unreasonable. Accordingly, the Court affirmed Defendant’s sentence. View "United States v. Ray" on Justia Law

Pro se prisoner Defendant Brian Prendergast petitioned the Tenth Circuit for a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the district court's denial of his application for a writ of habeas corpus. Defendant was convicted by a Colorado jury on twelve counts of securities fraud and one count of theft over $15,000. He appealed his conviction and was sentenced to concurrent terms of ten years of probation on each count. After his conviction, Defendant violated the terms of his probation on a number of occasions and was accordingly resentenced. In 2009, the State revoked his probation and Defendant was ultimately resentenced to concurrent six-year terms in prison. On petition to the Tenth Circuit, Defendant raised five claims: two attached the constitutionality of his 2009 resentencing; the remaining three attached the basis of his original conviction. The district court dismissed the two claims relating to the 2009 resentencing, and dismissed the remaining three as untimely. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit Court of appeals found no reason to disturb the district court's rulings and affirmed. View "Prendergast v. Clements, et al" on Justia Law

John Doe pled guilty to two drug trafficking charges in a plea bargain. Prior to the plea deal, he filed a motion to dismiss the indictment for breach of an immunity agreement and outrageous governmental conduct. The district court denied the motion. In the plea agreement, Doe did not negotiate a conditional plea in which he retained the right to appeal the court’s ruling, so he could not appeal unless he could establish a basis for the Tenth Circuit to ignore the appeal waiver. He attempted to do so in this appeal by contending: (1) the government cannot force the waiver of an immunity agreement on due process grounds; and (2) even if he could waive immunity, outrageous government conduct was an implied exception to any appeal waiver. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit found that Doe lacked a basis to bring the appeal and the facts of the case did not implicate the outrageous governmental conduct exception. Accordingly, the Court affirmed Doe's conviction, dismissed his appeal, and granted his motion to seal the briefs. View "United States v. Doe" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-Appellant Richard Kaufman brought a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action alleging that the Defendants, all Colorado police officers, had violated his constitutional rights by arresting him without probable cause. In 2009, a vehicle driven by an unnamed female driver hit an unoccupied car in a jewelry store parking lot. Someone witnessed the incident, took down the car's license plate number and reported it to the Colorado State Patrol. Officers investigating the report learned that Plaintiff owned the car and had made a purchase at the store moments before the accident. Plaintiff cited "privilege" in refusing to tell the officers the name of the female driver. Frustrated, the officers advised Plaintiff that refusing to tell them the name of the driver could end in an arrest for obstruction of justice. Plaintiff refused and he was arrested. The district court granted the Defendants' motion for summary judgment. As to a Fourth Amendment claim, the court concluded that there was no false arrest because the troopers had probable cause to believe Plaintiff's silence, accompanied by assertion of privilege, constituted a violation of the obstruction statute. The Tenth Circuit disagreed and reversed. The Defendants never contended that their encounter with Plaintiff was other than consensual; the law was well established that a citizen has no obligation to answer an officer's questions during a consensual encounter; and the Colorado Supreme Court had made it clear that the Colorado obstruction statute is not violated by mere verbal opposition to an officer's questioning. "It follows that the Defendants could not have reasonably thought that they were justified in arresting Plaintiff and their motion for summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity should have been denied." View "Kaufman v. Higgs, et al" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Jose Salas-Garcia filed a direct appeal to the Tenth Circuit following his conditional plea of guilty to one count of conspiring to possess with the intent to distribute more than 500 grams of cocaine and one count of possessing more than 500 grams of cocaine with the intent to distribute. Prior to his plea, he moved to suppress drugs found in the vehicle he was driving as well as statements he made to police, arguing that he was illegally arrested and the evidence subsequently obtained was the fruit of a constitutional violation. The district court denied his motion to suppress. Defendant entered a conditional guilty plea on both counts. He then sought to withdraw his guilty plea because he did not fully understand the immigration consequences of his plea. He argued he had an absolute right to withdraw his plea because the district court had not yet accepted it. The district court denied his motion to withdraw his guilty plea and sentenced Defendant to concurrent terms of sixty months' imprisonment and a four-year term of supervised release. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Defendant's motion to suppress and dismissed his appeal of the district court's denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. View "United States v. Salas-Garcia" on Justia Law

In December 2008, Defendant Joe Maldonado pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. The presentence report (PSR) concluded that the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) applied to him as a result of three prior burglary convictions, subjecting him to a mandatory sentencing enhancement. Defendant objected, arguing that one of his prior convictions, a first-degree burglary conviction in California, was not a violent felony under the ACCA. The district court overruled the objection and sentenced Defendant to the ACCA-mandated minimum sentence of 15 years. The sole issue on appeal to the Tenth Circuit was whether California's first-degree burglary statute was a violent felony under the ACCA. Upon review, the Court held that it was by virtue of the ACCA's residual clause. View "United States v. Maldonado" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Jarrod Duran challenged the procedural reasonableness of his forty-one month sentence, claiming that his prior conviction for aggravated assault under Texas law was not a crime of violence under the United States Sentencing Guidelines (USSG). Because the Tenth Circuit agreed that under Texas law aggravated assault could be committed with only a mens rea of recklessness, it is not categorically a crime of violence. The Court therefore remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Duran" on Justia Law