Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

A New Mexico jury convicted former prison guard Defendant-Appellant John Gould of two counts of depriving an inmate of his rights under color of law, and two counts of filing a false report. The convictions arose out of Defendant's use of excessive force against two inmates in two different detention centers and his filing of false reports to cover the incidents up. On appeal, Defendant sought reversal of all the charges against him, arguing that the delay between his conviction and the entry of the final judgment violated his Sixth Amendment rights, and that the district court erred in excluding certain evidence. Finding no violation of Defendant's constitutional rights, and finding that if there was an error in excluding the evidence, it was harmless, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's decisions.

Defendant-Appellant Salvador Mendoza-Lopez appeals his sentence, arguing the district court denied him his right of allocution. Mendoza-Lopez pleaded guilty to one count of unlawful re-entry after removal. The Presentence Investigation Report (PSR) recommended a sentence of seventy months. Defendant filed motions for departure and variance, seeking a forty-month sentence. He argued he qualified for a downward departure under the Guidelines because his criminal history category over-represented the seriousness of his prior record. At sentencing, Defendant's counsel reiterated at length his arguments for a departure and variance. The district court, in a lengthy statement from the bench, denied both motions and accepted the PSR's recommended Guidelines range of seventy to eighty-seven months. Immediately thereafter the court said: "[i]t's the Court['s] intention to sentence within that Guideline range." It then invited both Defendant's counsel, and Defendant himself to address "where within that range this Court should sentence." The court assured defense counsel it had taken into account the Guidelines' factors and would continue to do so when it imposed sentence. At his opportunity to speak, Defendant said: "I would simply like to say that I apologize, I’m sorry for having come back. I’d like you to know that I have small children in Mexico who need me to support them by working. That’s really all." The district court sentenced Defendant to seventy months, stating that it was "sympathetic with the fact that the defendant has a wife and two small children that very much need him back home." Defendant appealed his sentence, arguing the district court violated his right of allocution by definitively announcing its intention to impose a sentence within the advisory Guidelines range before inviting him to speak. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit concluded that the district court erred by inviting Defendant to speak with respect to where within the Guidelines range the court should sentence him. This error, however, did not seriously affect the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings, and the Court affirmed Defendant's sentence.

Defendant-Appellant Glenn Damato appealed his 96-month sentence for conspiracy to distribute marijuana. He argued that the district court erred in calculating the quantity of drugs by including as relevant conduct a drug transaction that occurred more than thirteen years prior to what he was convicted of in this case. The government argued that the old transaction was part of the "same course of conduct." Upon reivew, the Tenth Circut could not agree with the government’s argument: "the thirteen-year interval at issue far exceeds the gap between relevant conduct and the charged offense in the case law of any circuit including our own. Further, that extreme lack of temporal proximity was not mitigated by strong evidence of regularity or similarity." Nevertheless, the Court exercised its discretion to consider an alternative basis to affirm, and concluded that the prior transaction qualified as relevant conduct because it and the current conviction were part of a "common scheme or plan." With that, the Court affirmed Defendant's conviction.

Defendant Casimiro Loya-Rodriguez appealed his conviction and sentence for illegal reentry after deportation subsequent to an aggravated felony conviction. He contended the district court denied his Sixth Amendment right to represent himself both at trial and at sentencing. Upon review, the Tenth circuit affirmed Defendant's conviction because he failed to make a clear and unequivocal request to represent himself at trial. But the Court remanded the case to the district court to vacate his sentence and then resentence him because he did make such a request to represent himself at sentencing.

Defendant-Appellant Jonathan McGehee was found guilty by jury of possessing with the intent to distribute a quantity of cocaine base, possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime, and being a felon in possession of a firearm. He appealed his conviction and sentence arguing that: (1) the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress on the grounds that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated during a traffic stop where police discovered narcotics and a firearm; (2) the evidence at trial was insufficient as a matter of law to establish that he possessed the firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking offense; and (3) the district court erred by denying him a two-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit found no abuse of discretion by the district court, and affirmed Defendant's conviction and sentence.

A confidential informant purchased controlled substances from Defendant Willie West in controlled buys. Some of these purchases occurred at Defendant's apartment in Lawrence, Kansas, which was within 1000 feet of Holcom Park. A grand jury indicted Defendant on one count of possessing marijuana within 1000 feet of a public playground with an intent to distribute, and one count of maintaining a place within 1000 feet of a public playground for the purpose of distributing marijuana. The issue before the Tenth Circuit was whether Holcom Park was a statutory "playground" within the meaning of 21 U.S.C. secs. 841(a) and 860(a). At the close of the Government's case, Defendant moved for a judgment of acquittal, arguing the evidence failed to establish that Holcom Park was a "playground." The district court denied Defendant's motion. The jury subsequently returned a verdict of guilty on all counts. In denying Defendant's subsequent motion for a new trial, the district court referenced the Government's argument that "[e]ven if the jury found the [jungle gyms] constituted one apparatus, . . . the . . .baseball diamonds, volleyball courts, and Holcom’s other amenities are each apparatus intended for the recreation of children." Defendant appealed, and the Tenth Circuit affirmed.

Defendant-Appellant Abram Venzor-Granillo appealed the district court’s application of an eight-level sentence enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2L1.2(b)(1)(C). He argued the district court erred by using the modified categorical approach to conclude his prior Colorado conviction for first degree criminal trespass was a theft offense, warranting the enhancement. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit concluded the district court properly applied the modified categorical approach because the Colorado statute under which Defendant was convicted was ambiguous: it reached a broad range of conduct, some of which merit the enhancement and some of which do not. The charging document and plea agreement underlying Defendant's prior conviction revealed he admitted all the elements of the generic offense of attempt to commit theft. Therefore, the district court did not err in imposing the sentence enhancement.

Defendant-Appellant Raul Rosales-Garcia pled guilty to one count of illegal reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1326 and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 37 months. On appeal Defendant challenged his sentence, alleging that the district court incorrectly applied the Sentencing Guidelines. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit agreed, reversed the district court's sentence and remanded the case for resentencing.

Defendant-Appellant Miguel Games-Perez was indicted for possession of a firearm by a felon. Claiming that he was unaware that he was actually a felon, he filed a motion in limine, seeking a pre-trial ruling that the government was required to prove that he actually knew he was a felon. When that motion was denied, Defendant filed a motion to enter a conditional guilty plea, asking to reserve the right to appeal the district court's denial of his motion in limine. The district court granted Defendant's motion, pursuant to which he entered his conditional guilty plea. The district court sentenced him to fifty-seven months' imprisonment, followed by three years of supervised release. Defendant appealed his sentence, arguing that his case was distinguishable from established case law that held scienter was not required to be convicted of possession as a convicted felon. Upon review of Defendant's criminal history and his then-current probation, the Tenth Circuit concluded Defendant had a constructive knowledge of having been a felon: "it was pellucidly clear to him that he could not violate his probation, by possessing a firearm, and escape the consequences of his felony conviction. Thus, Mr. Games-Perez knew, as a matter of fact, that he was losing the benefit of his bargain when he picked up a gun while on probation. He just did not know the legal consequences of it–up to ten years in federal prison." The Court affirmed the district court's decision.

Relying on "Atkins v. Virginia" (536 W.S. 304, 321 (2002)), the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (OCCA) granted Petitioner-Appellant George Ochoa a post-conviction jury trial to determine whether he was mentally retarded. The jury found Petitioner failed to meet his burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that he was mentally retarded, and the OCCA affirmed. The Tenth Circuit granted Petitioner permission to file a second 28 U.S.C. 2254 petition to raise his "Atkins" claims in federal court. After the district court denied Petitioner's second 2254 habeas petition on the merits, Petitioner appealed to the Tenth Circuit. Petitioner contended Oklahoma law, which focuses on whether a defendant is mentally retarded at the time of trial, instead of whether he was mentally retarded at the time of the commission of the crime, is "contrary to, or . . . an unreasonable application of" "Atkins." Furthermore, Petitioner contended his trial was fundamentally unfair. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit found the district court properly resolved Petitioner's case, and that none of the alleged errors at trial entitled him to habeas relief.