Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant-Appellant Corey Cornelius was charged with four counts of federal racketeering- and drug-related offenses in 2008 in the District of Kansas along with nineteen codefendants in a thirty-count indictment. A jury convicted Cornelius in 2009 of one count of conspiracy to commit a violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), one count of conspiracy to distribute crack cocaine, and one count of conspiracy to distribute marijuana. The jury could not reach a verdict on the fourth count against Cornelius, charging racketeering under RICO. The district court sentenced Cornelius to 210 months' imprisonment in 2010. Both Cornelius and the Government appealed aspects of the district court's order. Cornelius argued that (1) the evidence at trial was insufficient to support a conviction on any of the counts under which he was convicted; (2) the district court erred by instructing the jury pertaining to the RICO charges; (3) the district court erred by giving the jury an 'Allen' instruction after the jury advised the court that it was deadlocked on certain counts; (4) the district court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on the affirmative defense of duress; (5) Cornelius was denied his right to trial by an impartial jury, in light of an allegedly bias-indicating letter that a juror handed to the prosecution after trial; and (6) Cornelius's sentence was unconstitutional, contrary to the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, and based upon an improperly considered prior conviction. The Government cross-appealed with regard to Cornelius's sentence, arguing that the district court erred by failing to impose the statutorily applicable twenty-year mandatory minimum term of imprisonment required for his crack-cocaine conviction. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit rejected Defendant's arguments on appeal and affirmed his conviction. The Court agreed with the Government that the district court erred by failing to impose the statutory mandatory minimum sentence in this case, and therefore vacated Defendant's sentence and remanded the case for resentencing.

Federal prisoner Rufus Shines sought authorization from the Tenth Circuit to file a second or successive 2255 motion to challenge his sentence. On appeal, he argued that the Supreme Court's recent decision in "Dorsey v. United States" (132 S.Ct. 2321 (2012)) and its application of the Fair Sentencing Act's lower mandatory minimums for sentences like his applied to pre-Act offenders. In relevant part, the FSA eliminated the mandatory minimum five-year sentence that was applied to Mr. Shines. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit denied to authorize the successive motion: "Mr. Shines relies on 2255(h)(2), claiming that 'Dorsey' announced a new rule of law. However Dorsey did not announce a new rule of constitutional law."

Defendant-Appellant Tim DeChristopher entered a Bureau of Land Management (BLM) oil and gas lease auction in Salt Lake City, Utah, by representing he was a bidder. His purpose was to disrupt the auction and call attention to the potential environmental harms of drilling on the leases. He proceeded to drive up the auction prices and ultimately won almost $1.8 million in bids, for which he was unable to pay. A jury convicted Defendant of interfering with the provisions of Chapter 3A of the Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act, and making a false statement or representation. He appealed, raising eight separate issues related to his conviction. Upon review of each, the Tenth Circuit determined they had no merit and affirmed Defendant's conviction and sentence.

Brothers James and Marlin Butler sold guided deer hunts to out-of-state hunters, providing lodging, meals, and guiding services. On several occasions, they encouraged their clients to violate state hunting laws. Both pled guilty to conspiring to sell and transport poached deer in violation of the Lacey Act. The district court concluded that the value of each deer was the total amount that a client paid to participate in the guided hunt. Based on this determination, the court sentenced the Butlers to several years’ imprisonment, required that they pay substantial fines and restitution to Kansas, and imposed special conditions of supervision prohibiting both men from hunting, fishing, or trapping wildlife. The Butlers appealed the district court's valuation method and their sentences based on that valuation. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that because the value assigned to loss of wildlife must reflect the actual value of the animals involved, the district court erred in conflating the value of the deer with the full price of a guided hunt. The Court also concluded that the district court improperly imposed James Butler’s special conditions of supervision without considering whether those conditions would interfere with his lawful employment. Accordingly, the Court reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

Pro se prisoner Applicant David Woodward sought a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the denial of his application for relief under 28 U.S.C. 2254. The district court dismissed the application as untimely. Applicant's principal argument was that the limitations period for filing the application had not yet expired because the state court had yet to rule on a postconviction discovery motion that he filed in 1994. Because the Tenth Circuit held that a postconviction discovery motion does not toll the limitations period for filing a 2254 application, the Court denied the application for a COA and dismissed the appeal.

After Sun Travis was abducted, raped, and shot dead, an Oklahoma jury found Anthony Banks, by that time already in prison for another killing, guilty of murdering Mrs. Travis and sentenced him to death. After an unsuccessful direct appeal and two rounds of collateral review in state court, Mr. Banks filed a federal habeas petition. The district court denied his petition but granted him a certificate of appealability to pursue several arguments before the Tenth Circuit. After careful review and "in accord with the decisions of all the courts that have preceded," the Tenth Circuit concluded none merited relief.

Defendant Jay Stuart De Vaughn mailed twelve hoax anthrax letters to the President of the United States, seven members of Congress, and two Argentine consulates in the United States. He pled guilty to multiple counts of mailing threatening communications. Defendant challenged the validity of the charges, arguing his statements did not constitute "threats" and that applying these statutes to him violated the First Amendment. "Addressing these arguments requires some straightforward statutory construction and the application of controlling Supreme Court precedent. Yet this case is not as simple as it seems." Defendant pled guilty unconditionally without reserving a right to appeal, but the Government has failed to raise the preclusive effect of Defendant's guilty plea. The issue before the Tenth Circuit included then a determination of whether Defendant's guilty plea deprives the Court of jurisdiction and prevented it from reaching the merits. The Government also sought to dismiss two of the cases on appeal for lack of territorial jurisdiction. Ultimately, the Tenth Circuit concluded that it had jurisdiction over the case and affirmed.

Petitioner Baltazar Sosa-Valenzuela illegally entered the United States from Mexico in 1981 at the age of three, and became a lawful permanent resident in 1992. In 1994, when he was sixteen, he shot and seriously injured a gang member. He pled guilty to attempted murder in the second degree and to unlawful possession of a firearm by a juvenile. After a successful post-conviction ineffectiveness of counsel petition, the state district court amended Petitioner's guilty plea to first degree assault and crime of violence with a deadly weapon. In 1996, while Petitioner was in juvenile detention, the Immigration and Naturalization Service issued a show cause order, charging Petitioner as deportable because of his criminal conviction. The immigration proceedings were then delayed for several years, while Petitioner was released and successfully completed his parole. Petitioner conceded deportability but requested a section 212 waiver which was then available as a form of discretionary relief under federal law and an adjustment of status. Both forms of relief were granted by the IJ and then denied by the BIA. Petitioner appealed the BIA's decision and order of deportation on three grounds: (1) the procedural regularity of the BIA decision as a collateral attack on the IJ's waiver decision; (2) the merits of the BIA's decision to reverse the IJ's waiver, arguing that it conflicted with the Supreme Court's decision in "Judulang v. Holder," (132 S. Ct. 476 (2011)); and (3) the BIA abused its discretion in denying him an adjustment of status based on his marriage to an American citizen. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit found the BIA was not precluded from reviewing the IJ's waiver decision, but we must remand to the BIA so that it may evaluate its decision in light of the Supreme Court's ruling in "Judulang." The Court affirmed the BIA's discretionary denial of adjustment of status.

A federal jury convicted Defendant-Appellant Gilbert Turrietta of assaulting a law enforcement officer. The jury reached its verdict despite having never been sworn. The problem would have gone unnoticed were it not for a belated objection from Defendant's attorney who knew from the outset of the trial that the jury had not been sworn. The attorney strategically reserved any objection until a guilty verdict was returned and the jury had dispersed. "A verdict delivered by an unsworn jury may present an issue of constitutional dimension . . . [but] by lying behind the log," defense counsel failed to preserve the issue he wanted the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals to decide. "Quietly harboring an objection until it cannot be addressed effectively is the functional equivalent of making no objection - at the very least, a forfeiture." Under the plain error doctrine, the Court concluded that it could not correct a forfeited error unless failing to do so would "cement" a clearly unjust result. Accordingly, the Court decided not to disturb the district court’s refusal to declare the jury’s verdict a nullity.

An Oklahoma jury convicted Defendant Brian Darrell Davis of the first-degree murder and rape of Josephine “Jody” Sanford, the mother of his girlfriend Stacey Sanford. On the recommendation of the jury, Defendant received a 100-year prison sentence for the rape and a death sentence for the murder. After unsuccessfully appealing to the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (OCCA) and pursuing postconviction relief in state court, Defendant unsuccessfully sought relief under 28 U.S.C. 2254 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma. The district court denied a certificate of appealability (COA) but the Tenth Circuit granted a COA on two issues: whether Defendant’s statements to police officers while he was hospitalized were knowing, intelligent, and voluntary; and whether his counsel was ineffective in failing to present scientific evidence that he was impaired while making those statements. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit affirmed on those issues because the OCCA did not unreasonably determine the facts or unreasonably apply federal law in rejecting these claims. The Court also denied Defendant’s Motion for Additional Issues in COA because no reasonable jurist could have disputed the district court’s resolution of the issues raised in the motion. The Court did, however, grant a COA on a claim that Defendant apparently thought was encompassed by its prior grant of a COA (the claim that his counsel was ineffective for failing to argue that police officers coerced him into making his hospital statements by withholding pain medication). But the Court affirmed the denial of the claim.