Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant-Appellant Taurus Hoyle appealed his conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm, and his sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”) to 262 months’ imprisonment. On appeal, Defendant contended that the government offered insufficient evidence that he possessed a firearm, and that the charged possession affected interstate commerce. With regard to his sentence, Defendant argued that two of the three prior convictions relied upon by the district court did not qualify as predicate convictions for the ACCA’s enhanced sentencing provisions. Specifically, Defendant argued that the two Kansas convictions were not qualifying predicates because the convictions no longer disqualified him from possessing firearms as a matter of state law. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit agreed that Defendant's firearm possession rights were restored by operation of state law, thus precluding either of the two state convictions from qualifying as ACCA predicates. Therefore the Court vacated Defendant's sentence, and remanded the case to the district court for resentencing.

Defendant Armando Ramos attacked the legal validity of his sentence for receipt of child pornography. Defendant was indicted by a federal grand jury in Kansas on two counts relating to the receipt and possession of child pornography. The charges arose out of an investigation that began with a tip from German authorities who were "policing the [e]Donkey peer-to-peer file sharing network and observed a known child pornography file available for download" at an IP address that was later traced by Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to Defendant. ICE executed a search warrant at Defendant's home, seizing multiple computers, hard drives, DVDs, and CDs containing thousands of images and videos of child pornography. During the search, an investigator interviewed Defendant who then admitted to being the sole user of the computers in his home, and to using eMule, the "specific program that . . . access[es] the [e]Donkey network," as a vehicle for obtaining child pornography. On appeal, Defendant raised multiple objections to his presentencing report (PSR). He also raised an issue that the mandatory-minimum provision of 18 USC 2252(b)(1) was unconstitutional. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit rejected Defendant's challenge to the sentence he received, and concluded that that he could not establish that his sentence was affected by application of the mandatory minimum of 18 USC 2252(b)(1).

Defendant-Appellant Anthony Shippley served as the "Sergeant at Arms" for a chapter of the Mongols Motorcycle Club. After a massive nationwide investigation and "take down" of the club in 2008, Defendant was arrested on federal drug conspiracy charges. His chief accuser, Benjamine Maestas (a former club president, longtime felon, and federal informant) testified at trial that Defendant was responsible for supplying considerable amounts of high quality cocaine for resale to retail customers. The jury returned a general verdict finding Defendant guilty. But in response to the court's special interrogatories, the jury indicated that Defendant had not conspired to distribute any of the drugs listed in the indictment. "In effect, the jury both convicted and acquitted Mr. Shippley of the charged conspiracy." The district court ordered the jury to deliberate further; further deliberations quickly yielded an unambiguous guilty verdict. Defendant appealed his conviction. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit could "not say the district court's chosen course was legally impermissible, at least not for the reasons [Defendant] offer[ed]." The Court ultimately rejected Defendant's challenges to a second and separate drug conviction as well as to a sentencing enhancement. Accordingly, the Tenth Circuit affirmed Defendant's convictions and sentence.

Petitioner Mohamed Rashed Al-Owhali, an inmate in a federal high-security prison, brought suit challenging several Special Administrative Measures (“SAMs”) imposed upon him. The district court dismissed the suit, finding that Petitioner failed to allege plausible facts to support his claims. Petitioner was convicted of several terrorism-related offenses stemming from the 1998 bombing of the United States embassy in Nairobi, Kenya. He was serving a life sentence without the possibility of parole. In 2009, Petitioner filed his second amended complaint in federal district court, alleging that these SAM restrictions and others violated his constitutional rights. Petitioner then filed a motion to reconsider and a motion to file a third amended complaint, both of which were denied. He then appealed. On the eve of oral argument, Petitioner conceded most of the arguments he had briefed. In light of concessions Petitioner made before argument, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal.

In a consolidated appeal, Oklahoma state prisoner Petitioner-Appellant Victor Hooks appealed two district court orders that denied him habeas relief. He sought relief on three alternate grounds: (1) he is mentally retarded and thus categorically ineligible for the death penalty; (2) aspects of his mental-retardation trial ("Atkins trial") denied him his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights to due process and a fair trial; and (3) his counsel was ineffective during both the guilt and sentencing phases of his original trial. Grounds 1 and 2 arose in Appeal No. 10-6076; ground 3 arose in Appeal No. 03-6049. The district court granted certificates of appealability on all claims. In No. 10-6076, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of habeas relief on all claims arising out of the Atkins trial; the Court affirmed the district court in No. 03-6049 which denied habeas relief as to Petitioner's 1989 conviction, but reversed the district court as to Petititioner's sentence. The writ was conditionally granted as to Petitioner's sentence.

Plaintiff Paul Armijo, former police chief of the Village of Columbus in New Mexico, filed a civil suit against several individual and entity defendants, including Appellants Armando Perales, Arnold Chavez, Adrian Flores, and Mirabel Jimenez. The civil suit arose out of an earlier criminal investigation that resulted in Appellants executing search and arrest warrants against Plaintiff. At the time in question, Appellants were criminal investigators in the district attorney’s office. In early 2007, Appellant Chavez assigned Appellants Jimenez and Perales to investigate Plaintiff on allegations of improper evidence handling, inventory problems relating to both police equipment and evidence, and the mishandling of city funds and impounded vehicles. Around the same time period, Plaintiff reported an alleged battery by the Village of Columbus mayor to state police. A conflicting bid sheet and purchase order relating to a city firearm purchase caused Appellants to investigate Plaintiff’s role in the transaction. In his Section 1983 complaint, Plaintiff raised a number of claims against several defendants, including claims of false arrest, false imprisonment, illegal search and seizure, and retaliation in violation of the First Amendment arising from Plaintiff’s report of the mayor’s alleged battery. Appellants moved for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. The district court denied summary judgment, holding the search and arrest warrants were invalid and thus Appellants were not entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiff’s false arrest, false imprisonment, and illegal search and seizure claims. Further, the district court held genuine issues of material fact existed as to certain elements of Plaintiff’s retaliation claim and therefore denied summary judgment on that claim. Upon review of the trial court record, the Tenth Circuit agreed with the district court's conclusions and affirmed the court's denial of summary judgment.

The issue before the Tenth Circuit in this case was whether the district court applied the correct legal standard in evaluating whether Defendant Hasan Ali Hasan was entitled to a court interpreter at grand jury proceedings that led to his indictment for perjury. The conviction was appealed and remanded because the Court concluded that Defendant may not have been able to communicate effectively in English in violation of the Court Interpreters Act. The case was remanded to the district court so the court could make findings related to Defendant's comparative ability to understand the grand jury proceedings. After remand, Defendant again appealed, this time arguing the court had not adequately followed the Tenth Circuit's directions spelled out in the prior case. The Tenth Circuit agreed, leading to a second remand for more specific findings. The district court then entered additional findings and conclusions, based on its review of the grand jury transcripts and its observations of the trial proceedings, that Defendant could sufficiently comprehend and communicate in English at the grand jury proceedings, and that whatever linguistic limitations he had were not so great as to make the proceedings fundamentally unfair. The question presented in this appeal was whether the district court's findings and conclusions satisfied the Tenth Circuit's directions in the first and second cases. Upon review, the Court concluded the district court did.

Defendant Alfredo Huizar pled guilty to reentering the United States illegally after an earlier deportation. The district court held that Defendant's 1995 California conviction for residential burglary qualified as a "crime of violence," triggering a sixteen-level enhancement. On appeal, Defendant argued the enhancement wasn't legally authorized and his sentence should have been reconsidered. Upon review of the district court record, the Tenth Circuit agreed that the district court erred in calculating Defendant's sentence. Accordingly, the Court vacated Defendant's sentence and remanded the case for resentencing.

The New Mexico Supreme Court has construed section 66-7-325 N.M. Stat. Ann. to require a motorist changing lanes to signal "even when there is only a reasonable possibility that other traffic may be affected by the signaling driver's movement." The broader question in this case was whether a New Mexico highway patrol officer lawfully stopped Defendant Francisco Burciaga's vehicle based on a suspected violation of 66-7-325, where Defendant without timely engaging his turn signal, changed from the left to the right lane on the interstate after passing the officer's patrol car. The district court held the stop violated Defendant's Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizures because the officer's testimony failed to establish that traffic "could have been affected" by Defendant's lane change absent facts not in evidence. Consequently, the court granted Defendant's motion to suppress over 17 kilograms of heroin recovered as a result of the stop. The Government appealed. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit held that section 66-7-325 as applied to the facts of this case provided the officer with an objectively justifiable basis for stopping Defendant's vehicle. Accordingly, the Court reversed.

Defendant Agapito Franco-Lopez appealed his conviction on one count of transporting an illegal alien. Defendant argued that the district court erred in denying his motion for acquittal because the government did not present evidence that the transported alien illegally "entered" the United States. In support, Defendant relied on the definition of "entry" used in the context of civil immigration law or in illegal reentry cases charged under 8 U.S.C. 1325 and 1326. As to this element of 8 U.S.C. 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii), the Tenth Circuit concluded the government needed only prove that the transported alien was present in the United States in violation of the law. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the district court.