Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant-Appellant Keenan Anthony Lamirand pled guilty to one count of possession of marijuana with the intent to distribute and sentenced to 24 months' imprisonment followed by five years of supervised release. After he served his sentence, he violated the terms of his supervised release, and in 2010, the district court revoked his supervised release and sentenced him to thirty days in prison. In addition, the district court also imposed a new term of supervised release. After serving his revocation sentence, Defendant violated the terms of the second sentence of supervised release, which lead the court to again revoke his release and sentence him to an additional year and a day in prison. Defendant appealed, claiming that the district court lacked the statutory authority to imprison him for a period longer than his second term of supervised release. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit concluded the district court did not err in its sentencing decisions.

Pro se prisoner Defendant-Appellant Joal Goodwin sought a certificate of appealability (COA) to challenge the district court's denial of his motion to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence. In 2010, Defendant was indicted on a single count of bank robbery. He entered into an agreement to plead guilty to the count charged in the indictment. Defendant's presentence investigation report (PSR) concluded that he was a career offender, and as such, the guideline range for imprisonment was 151 to 188 months. At that time, Defendant did not object to the PSR. Defendant filed a sentencing memorandum requesting that the district court either depart downward or vary from the applicable guideline sentencing range. The court sentenced Defendant to 155 months' imprisonment. He then appealed pro se by filing his motion to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence by arguing he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Finding that Defendant failed to satisfy the standards for the issuance of a COA, the Tenth Circuit denied Defendant's request and dismissed his appeal.

Pro se prisoner Petitioner-Appellant Anthony Branch sought a certificate of appealability to challenge the district court's denial of his application for habeas relief. Petitioner was convicted on one count of second-degree burglary. During opening arguments to the jury in the sentencing phase, the government referred to the length of Petitioner's previous sentences for other crimes. The court declared a mistrial and dismissed the jury. Petitioner then waived his right to be sentenced by a jury. The trial court sentenced Petitioner to a twenty-year term of imprisonment. Petitioner filed a direct appeal with the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (OCCA), where he was represented by different counsel. His sole argument on appeal was that the trial court erred in overruling his demurrer on sufficiency-of-the-evidence grounds. The OCCA affirmed Petitioner's conviction and sentence. Petitioner then turned to the federal court by filing a pro se petition for the writ of habeas corpus. The court concluded that Petitioner's petition raised claims for relief that he had not yet exhausted in state court. A magistrate judge recommended that the case be administratively closed rather than dismissed so that Petitioner could reopen the proceedings once he had exhausted his claims in state court. The district court adopted the magistrate's recommendation and stayed the case. Upon review of Petitioner's application for a COA, his opening brief, the magistrate's report and the district court's orders, the Tenth Circuit concluded that Petitioner did not make a substantial showing of the denial of his constitutional rights to warrant granting him the writ. Accordingly, the Court denied Petitioner's application for a COA and dismissed his appeal.

Plaintiff-Appellant Gary Belden was sentenced in Wyoming state court to life imprisonment after being convicted of first-degree murder and first-degree sexual assault. He was transferred to an out-of-state prison in 2003, shortly after his conviction was affirmed by the Wyoming state supreme court. In 2011, Plaintiff sued prison officials alleging that the Wyoming Department of Corrections had violated his constitutional right to access the courts while he was incarcerated outside Wyoming. The Department successfully moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff appealed. The Tenth Circuit found that the Constitution "does not guarantee access to the courts to file frivolous claims." The Court noticed that during the time Plaintiff was incarcerated, he engaged in "a good deal" of litigation. Hence, the Court concluded that the district court properly dismissed Plaintiff's access-to-court claim because he failed to show that he had a nonfrivolous claim that he was hindered in pursuing while incarcerated outside Wyoming.

Pro se prisoner Petitioner-Appellant Jimmy Ray O'Kelly sought a certificate of appealability (COA) to challenge the district court's denial of his application for habeas relief. Dozens of partygoers were gathered at a New Mexico apartment complex when a man who met the description of Petitioner held a gun to a man's head, and threatened onlookers not to get involved. Shots were fired; one person was killed, and three others, including Petitioner, were wounded. Petitioner unsuccessfully sought post-conviction relief in New Mexico state court, and the New Mexico Supreme Court denied certiorari. In his petition before the district court, Petitioner raised eight grounds for relief, which was summarily dismissed with prejudice. After thoroughly reviewing Petitioner's COA application, the magistrate judge's opinion and the state-court record, the Tenth Circuit agreed for substantially the same reasons endorsed and adopted by the district court that Petitioner was not entitled to habeas relief. The Court denied Petitioner's application for a COA and dismissed his appeal.

Defendant-Appellant Jeffery Doles appealed his conviction for sentencing after a jury convicted him of unlawfully selling drug paraphernalia. Defendant was given a voluntary surrender date, but fled to Mexico instead of reporting to the Bureau of Prisons. On appeal to the Tenth Circuit, Defendant argued that the district court improperly excluded evidence that would have been material to an affirmative defense of medical necessity for failing to report. The medical issues Defendant claimed arose out of a 1996 car accident in which he was seriously injured. As a result, he was paralyzed from the chest down and takes numerous medications for pain and discomfort. Defendant claims the excluded evidence would have supported a necessity defense: (1) evidence about his physical condition, (2) evidence about his state of mind concerning his physical condition, (3) and evidence about his fears of receiving inadequate care in prison. Finding that Defendant did not and could not have proffered sufficient evidence to establish any of his claims of error, and that Defendant's belief that he had been illegally convicted did not excuse him from reporting to serve his sentence, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision.

In 2010, Defendant-Appellant Franklin Carel, Jr. was convicted of knowingly failing to update his sex offender registration as required by the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA). On appeal,he contended that SORNA's sex offender registration provision, 42 U.S.C. 16913, is unconstitutional. Upon careful consideration of Defendant's appellate brief before the Tenth Circuit, the Court held that as applied to Defendant as a federal sex offender on supervised release, section 16913 is a constitutional exercise of Congress’s authority under the Necessary and Proper Clause.

Defendant-Appellant Randell David Lonjose pleaded guilty to one count of engaging in a sexual act with a minor in Indian Country, and was sentenced to 51 months in prison followed by three years of supervised release. As part of his plea agreement, Defendant waived his right to appeal his sentence. The United States Probation Office (USPO) later filed an ex parte petition seeking to modify Defendant’s conditions of supervised release to include two additional special conditions. On appeal, Defendant contended that the district court erred in granting the USPO’s motion as to one of the conditions. Defendant argued that the condition prohibiting him from having contact with any child under the age of 18 without prior written permission of his probation officer was overly broad because it intruded on his right to freely associate with his family and lacked a compelling justification. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit held that the appellate waiver in Defendant's plea agreement did not preclude the filing of this appeal, and reversed the district court's imposition of conditions on Defendant's supervised release. The case was remanded for further proceedings on the scope of the condition so that it "reasonably relate[d back] to Defendant's offense."

Defendant-Appellant Adrian Mata Rodriguez appealed a district court order that dismissed his challenge to the legality of his conviction for possession and distribution of methamphetamine, illegal possession of a firearm, and unlawful reentry. In early 2010, Defendant sold methamphetamine to a police informant in Kansas City, Kansas. Defendant argued that the case against him was based on information from an untested informant who was trying to escape prosecution himself, and therefore unreliable. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit found that Defendant incorrectly brought his action under 28 U.S.C. 2241 instead of section 2255. The district court did not err in failing to construe Defendant's petition as a 2255 motion because it was left to the discretion of the district court to do so.

Pro se prisoner Plaintiff-Appellant Jerry Wayne Smith appealed a district court's dismissal of his civil rights action against Kansas Department of Corrections (KDOC) officials. Plaintiff was incarcerated from 1998 to September 2002. In May 2002, he filed the action against the defendants in state court. That action was dismissed because Plaintiff failed to pay costs. In November 2005, Plaintiff filed a civil rights action against the defendants in federal court. That action was dismissed with prejudice for his failure to prosecute the case in an orderly and timely fashion. During the pendency of the 2005 action, Plaintiff filed the complaint in this case in September 2007. His claims arose during his incarceration in the KDOC and the bulk of the allegations relate to events from 1998 through 2002. The district court sua sponte considered the timeliness of Plaintiff's complaint before it was served on defendants, and concluded that the applicable limitations period for bringing all of Plaintiff's claims was two years. Before dismissing the action, the district court reviewed Plaintiff's response to its show cause order and then dismissed the case with prejudice. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit agreed with the district court's reasoning in dismissing Plaintiff's case, and affirmed its decision.