Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Petitioner Steven Ray Thacker pled guilty in Oklahoma state court to charges of first-degree malice aforethought murder, kidnapping, and first-degree rape. Following a sentencing hearing, the state trial court sentenced Petitioner to death for the murder conviction. Petitioner's death sentence was affirmed on direct appeal, and his requests for state post-conviction relief were denied. Petitioner then petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2254, but was denied relief by the district court. He then filed a notice of appeal and the district court granted him a certificate of appealability on four issues. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit found that Petitioner was not entitled to relief and affirmed the district court's denial of federal habeas relief.

In three consolidated cases, Plaintiffs-Appellants Omar Rezaq, Mohammed Saleh, Ibrahim Elgabrowny, and El-Sayyid Nosair appealed the district court's grants of summary judgment in favor of Appellee Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) and named officials in brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331, 1343(a)(4), 1346, 2201, and 2202. All three were convicted of terrorism-related offenses. Rezaq's action was filed in 2007; the action by Saleh, Elgabrowny, and Nosair filed in 2008. Plaintiffs contended that they had a liberty interest in avoiding transfer without due process to the Administrative Maximum Prison (ADX) in Florence, Colorado, where they were formerly housed. In separate orders, the district court rejected their arguments and found that Plaintiffs lacked a cognizable liberty interest in avoiding confinement at ADX. While the BOP agreed with this reasoning, it also contended that all of Plaintiffs' claims became moot when they were transferred to other prisons. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit concluded that these cases were not moot and affirmed the district court's judgments on the merits.

Pro se prisoner Defendant Dominic Moya appealed the district court’s denial of his motion for post-conviction relief. He sought a certificate of appealability (COA) from the Tenth Circuit. Defendant was indicted in 2009 by a federal grand jury for being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition; for possessing cocaine base with the intent to distribute; and for carrying the firearm in relation to a drug-trafficking crime. Defendant argued on appeal that he received ineffective assistance of counsel in relation to the plea agreement he accepted. Finding that no reasonable jurist could debate the district court's dismissal of his motion, the Tenth Circuit found Defendant failed to allege facts to support a finding that he was prejudiced by his attorney's purported ineffectiveness.

Defendants William Pickard and Clyde Apperson were federal prisoners who sought post-conviction relief. They both sought review of the district court's decision to decline to rule on a motion to unseal documents for use during their postconviction proceedings. The court decided that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the motion because the underlying proceedings were before the court on appeal. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit concluded it too lacked jurisdiction because the district court's order was not a final order.

Plaintiffs William B. Elliott, Tommy J. Evaro, and Andria J. Hernandez were all targets of investigations by a Dona Ana County grand jury. Under New Mexico law they were entitled to target notices that advised them of the right to testify before the grand jury. But the notices they received may not have complied with state law. They filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. 1983 in federal district court alleging that District Attorney Susana Martinez violated their due-process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The district court granted the District Attorney’s motion to dismiss on the ground that the New Mexico statute did not establish a liberty interest protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. Plaintiffs appealed. Upon review the Tenth Circuit affirmed, finding the statutory right to particular procedures was not a liberty interest under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Pro se prisoner Defendant Joe Viera filed a motion to vacate, set aside or correct the sentence he received for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, distribution and use of a communication facility to facilitate the distribution of the methamphetamine. Defendant alleged ineffective assistance of counsel. The district court denied the motion but granted a Certificate of Appealability (COA) on the claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to file an appeal despite Defendant’s specific instructions to do so (the appeal issue). The district court denied COA as to other claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. On appeal to the Tenth Circuit, Defendant appealed the appeal issue and requested a COA on several other issues. Finding that many of the issues raised in his appeal to the Tenth Circuit were raised for the first time, and finding that the evidence for his ineffective assistance of counsel claim was insufficient to support an appeal, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Defendant's case the denial of the COA.

Defendant-Appellant Shannon Keith Hunt was sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment for violating the conditions of his supervised release. On appeal, he argued the district court failed to apply 18 U.S.C. 3583(e)(3) to give him credit for prison time served on two prior sentences for revocation of his supervised release. Taken together, Defendant claimed these sentences exceed the maximum amount of supervised release authorized for his original offense, which federal law prohibits. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit disagreed and held that the district court was not required to credit Defendant for his previous terms of revocation imprisonment. The court was only required to consider Defendant's previous revocation imprisonment when setting a new term of supervised release.

Plaintiff-Appellee Jose Antonio-Agusta appealed a district court’s application of U.S.S.G. 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii)'s sixteen-level sentence enhancement in calculating his advisory Guidelines range. He argued the district court erred in relying on the indictment underlying his prior Arizona convictions to conclude those convictions constitute felony crimes of violence, warranting the enhancement. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit concluded the district court did not err because the indictment was incorporated by reference in the judgment and is therefore reliable evidence of the elements of Plaintiff's prior convictions. Furthermore, the indictment, plea agreement, and judgment revealed Plaintiff was convicted under parts of Arizona's aggravated assault statutes that constitute crimes of violence. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the sentence imposed by the district court.

Defendant-Appellant Andre Haymond was convicted of one count of possession or attempted possession of child pornography after federal agents discovered Defendant had downloaded the child pornography from a filesharing website. The government based its case at trial on seven images found after the FBI's investigation. Before trial, Defendant unsuccessfully moved to suppress evidence and statements obtained during the search of his home and the related forensic search of his computer on the grounds that the underlying search warrant was issued without probable cause. Following trial, Defendant moved for acquittal on grounds of insufficient evidence. Ultimately Defendant was sentenced to thirty-eight months in prison and ten years of supervised release. Defendant appealed his conviction. Finding that the search warrant was supported by probable cause, that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support the verdict against him, and that alleged procedural errors at trial were harmless, the Tenth Circuit affirmed Defendant's conviction and sentence.

Appellant Michael McGaughy pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute marijuana, and the district court sentenced him to 46 months' imprisonment. Months later, Appellant filed a "2255" motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing and asked for resentencing. The district court conferred informally with the parties, and the government agreed to re-sentencing. At re-sentencing, the district court again sentenced Appellant to 46 months' imprisonment, and dismissed the 2255 motion as moot. Appellant then filed another motion to correct sentence under both Rule 35(a) and 2255, this time arguing that at re-sentencing the government presented materially false information regarding his efforts to cooperate with the government before pleading guilty. The district court denied the motion. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit found that the re-sentencing raised three related issues: (1) whether the court retained jurisdiction to re-sentence Appellant under 2255 because it never granted the petition (instead dismissing it as moot after re-sentencing); (2) whether the district court had subject-matter jurisdiction to rule on Appellant's Rule 35(a) claim after the Rule’s 14-day time limit lapsed; (3) whether the district court properly denied Appellant's second 2255 claim. The Court concluded the district court had jurisdiction to re-sentence Appellant, but that his challenge to his re-sentencing was untimely because Rule 35’s 14-day time limitation is jurisdictional. Therefore, the Court affirmed the denial of Appellant's 2255 claim, vacated the denial of his Rule 35(a) claim and remanded the case for the district court to dismiss the Rule 35(a) claim for lack of jurisdiction.