Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

In August 2010, Defendant Byron Ventura-Perez pled guilty in Colorado to illegal reentry after having been deported subsequent to an aggravated-felony conviction. Defendant raised two issues on appeal: (1) he contended the district court miscalculated his offense level under the Sentencing Guidelines; and (2) he contended that when the court imposed his sentence, it improperly refused to consider sentencing disparities created by fast-track programs in other districts. Finding no error in the district court's decision, the Tenth Circuit affirmed Defendant's sentence.

Defendant-Appellant Felipe Ruiz conditionally pled guilty to possessing with the intent to distribute more than five kilograms of cocaine. He reserved his right to appeal the district court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence. On appeal, he contended the district court erred in refusing to suppress evidence seized from a rented airplane. Defendant's arrest stemmed from a 2010 flight he made from New Mexico and Kansas. Suspicions arose with the Air and Marine Operations Center (AMOC), and after further investigation, it found that Defendant had not filed a flight plan for "marginal weather," and that an airplane carrying drugs had landed in Kansas six months earlier. AMOC contacted Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) who along with officials from the Kansas Bureau of Investigation went to investigate at the hangar in which the plane landed. Officials detected cocaine in the plane and arrested Defendant for possession. On appeal, Defendant challenged the sufficiency of the arrest warrant as having omitted critical information and stated "affirmative falsehoods." Because the information omitted from the affidavit was immaterial to the magistrate's probable cause determination, the Tenth Circuit concluded that the district court properly denied Defendant's motion to suppress the evidence obtained from the search of the airplane.

Petitioner-Appellant Marcellous Ander Roebuck sought a certificate of appealability (COA) to challenge his conviction and sentence on the grounds he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. Petitioner pled guilty in Colorado state court to several felonies, and was sentenced to 83 years in prison; he did not appeal. Following an application for state post-conviction relief, Petitioner filed a 28 U.S.C. 2254 motion with the district court, alleging various claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. The district court found that Petitioner waived some of those claims in his plea agreement. The court disposed of Petitioner's other claims on the merits. Finding that he did not make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, the Tenth Circuit denied Petitioner's application for a COA and dismissed his appeal.

Pro se prisoner Petitioner Lynn Scott sought a certificate of appealability (COA) to challenge the district court's dismissal of his petition for habeas relief. In 2000, Petitioner was convicted in Colorado state court on two different drug counts and sentenced to ten years' imprisonment with the Colorado Department of Corrections (DOC), plus a five-year period of mandatory parole. In 2004, he was sentenced to six months' imprisonment and a two-year period of parole, respectively, for convictions on two charges of attempted escape. In 2006, the Colorado Board of Parole granted Petitioner early release to parole and ordered the mandatory five-year parole to start in 2007. Later that year, a parole complaint was filed, alleging that Petitioner had violated numerous provisions of his parole, including absconding from parole supervision. Petitioner's parole was revoked, and he returned to the DOC to serve his revocation time. Over the next several years, Petitioner would commit new crimes, violate the terms of his parole, have it revoked, be reincarcerated, and granted new periods of parole. The cycle stopped in 2010 when Petitioner brought this habeas action to challenge the validity of one of his 2007 disciplinary convictions. The Warden, as Respondent, did not assert any affirmative defenses, but moved the court to dismiss the matter as moot. The district court dismissed the case as moot, denied habeas relied and denied a COA. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit found "no debate" as to whether Petitioner's claims were moot. "No reasonable jurist would conclude otherwise." The Court denied Petitioner's application for a COA and dismissed his appeal.

Defendant-Appellant Drew Bates appealed his conviction on cocaine possession charges. He argued on appeal to the Tenth Circuit that: (1) the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress; (2) there was insufficient evidence to convict him; and (3) his trial counsel was ineffective. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit found that the court did not err in its decision to deny Defendant's motion, and that there was substantial evidence to support his conviction. Furthermore, the Court did not find that Defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel in his case. Accordingly, the Court affirmed Defendant's conviction.

Pro se prisoner Defendant James Duran sought a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the district court's denial of his "Rule 60(b)" motion for reconsideration of his previously denied motion for post-conviction relief. Following a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of multiple counts of violating federal drug and firearm laws. The Tenth Circuit affirmed Defendant's convictions on appeal, concluding that neither the issues raised by counsel nor the issues raised by Defendant in a pro se brief had any merit. Defendant thereafter filed a motion under section 2255, raising seven grounds for relief with seventy-six subissues. The district court denied Defendant's 2255 motion on the merits; the Tenth Circuit subsequently denied Defendant's request for a COA and dismissed the matter. Subsequently, Defendant filed three motions in the district court: (1) to set aside the court's order denying 2255 relief; (2) to have all legal correspondence stamped in red ink as legal mail; and (3) to disqualify or recuse the presiding district judge. After the district court's denial of his motions, Defendant sought a second COA to appeal from the district court's last order. Finding that "reasonable jurists also could not debate the district court's decision to dismiss the claim," the Tenth Circuit denied Defendant's request for a COA and dismissed his appeal.

Defendant-Appellant Daniel Schulz appealed his conviction following his guilty plea for distribution of fentanyl resulting in death. His counsel filed an "Anders" motion. Although the crime to which Schulz pled guilty carries a twenty-year minimum sentence, the government moved for a downward departure, recommending a sentence of ten years. Defendant successfully moved for a further departure, resulting in a sentence of 96 months' imprisonment. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit found it was not presented with any meritorious grounds for appeal. Accordingly, the Court granted counsel's request to withdraw and dismissed this appeal.

Defendant-Appellant Eugene Sunday appealed the computer and mental health conditions of the supervised release portion of his sentence for bank fraud and uttering counterfeit securities. Among his arguments on appeal to the Tenth Circuit, Defendant contended that the computer possession and use conditions were unjustified by the record and constituted an occupational restriction imposed without findings required by the Sentencing Manual. He also argued that the mental health evaluation and treatment conditions were unsupported by the record and were unconstitutional. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit found that because Defendant was a computer repairman "which obviously requires direct contact with various computers," the computer was not the only tool he used to commit his crime. The computer restriction as written, affected Defendant's substantial rights. Because the Court reversed and remanded the case for reconsideration of the occupational restriction on Defendant's sentence, the Court did not address Defendant's challenge to the mental health evaluation.

Defendant-Appellant Kerry Raina Bryant appealed her conviction for theft by an officer or employee of a gaming establishment on Choctaw Indian lands. She entered a conditional plea, reserving the right to appeal the denial of her motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. She was sentenced to a two-year probation, and ordered to pay restitution. On appeal, Defendant argued that the statute under which she was charged (18 U.S.C. 1168) did not apply to her because she was not a casino employee, and that 18 U.S.C. 2 did not apply because it punishes illegal acts against the "United States," and the Choctaw tribe is "not the United States." Upon review, the Tenth Circuit found that Defendant committed her crime with her sister, who was a casino employee, and the applicable statute declares Defendant a "principal" for aiding and abetting theft by a casino employee. Furthermore, the Court found Defendant's crime was against a "a gaming establishment licensed by the National Indian Gaming Association that sits on territory subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Plainly, there was a crime against the United States." The Court affirmed Defendant's conviction.

Pro se prisoner Plaintiff-Appellant Elvin Watkins filed a 42 U.S.C. 1983 complaint alleging that an Oklahoma Highway Patrol Trooper violated his constitutional rights in 2007 during a traffic stop that resulted in Plaintiff's arrest and eventual conviction for possessing marijuana with the intent to distribute. In addition to the trooper's motion to dismiss, the district court determined that the claims set forth in Plaintiff's amended complaint were barred by the statute of limitations. After review of Plaintiff's opening brief, the Tenth Circuit concluded that Plaintiff's arguments were inadequate to support his complaint. Accordingly, the Court agreed with the district court in dismissing Plaintiff's case.