Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant-Appellant Jonearl Smith was charged with possession with intent to distribute of five grams or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of cocaine base. The grand jury returned a superseding indictment charging Defendant with possession with intent to distribute of cocaine base and possession with intent to distribute cocaine several months earlier. Pursuant to a plea agreement, Defendant entered a guilty plea to all counts charged in the superseding indictment. The plea agreement did not prohibit the government from bringing additional criminal charges against him for the conduct giving rise to the criminal charges to which he pled guilty. Defendant was sentenced to 150 months' imprisonment on each count, to run concurrently. One year later, Defendant was charged in another superseding indictment, this time in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). Defendant was convicted on counts two and twenty-eight, and acquitted of count twenty-nine of the RICO indictment, and sentenced to 77 months' imprisonment. While the RICO case was pending, Defendant filed a motion in this case to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. A panel of the Tenth Circuit reversed and remanded the case. On remand, the district court granted Defendant's motion on the ground that his attorney failed to fully advise him of the consequences of entering a guilty plea. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the charges based on the the Double Jeopardy clause after the court set the case for a new jury trial. Finding that there were no issues decided in the RICO case that were identical to any issue in his possession case, the Tenth Circuit concluded collateral estoppel did not bar prosecution on Defendant's drug charges. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the district court's denial of Defendant's motion to dismiss.

Defendant Jorge Eraldo Aispuro-Aristegui pled guilty to conspiracy and possession of heroin with the intent to distribute. His plea reserved his right to appeal the district court's denial of his motion to suppress. Defendant did not challenge the district court's factual findings. Rather, he argued that there was no probable cause because drug enforcement agents (1) knew only that Defendant came to the bus station to give a third-party a ride ("a completely innocent and legal activity"), and (2) had no reason to trust that third-party and therefore had no reliable information linking him with Defendant in illicit activity. The Tenth Circuit was not persuaded, and affirmed the district court's judgment.

Pro se prisoner Petitioner-Appellant David Hampton sought a certificate of appealability (COA) to challenge a district court's denial of his application for habeas relief. In 2007, Petitioner was convicted by an Oklahoma jury on six counts pertaining to cocaine trafficking, possession and firearms charges. On the jury's recommendation, the state trial court ultimately sentenced Petitioner to multiple year sentences all to run concurrently. Petitioner was unsuccessful in his state appeals. He turned to the Tenth Circuit for judicial review. After careful review of the record on appeal, including the magistrate judge's initial and supplemental reports, and the district court's orders adopting those reports, the Tenth Circuit was "unable to conclude that reasonable jurists would find any of the district court's determinations debatable or wrong." Accordingly, the Court denied Petitioner's application for a COA and dismissed his appeal.

Pro se prisoner Petitioner Efrem Harris sought to appeal a district court's dismissal of his post-judgment motions for lack of jurisdiction, and its denial of his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend that dismissal. He petitioned the Tenth Circuit for a certificate of appealability (COA). In 2003, Petitioner was sentenced to life imprisonment for drug-trafficking offenses. He pursued a direct appeal and simultaneously filed his motion for post-conviction relief. At the time he prepared the motion, however, he did not realize the significance of the facts and so did not plead that constitutional claim. Therefore, he sought to reopen the judgment and amend his original post-conviction motion to include the claim, and to have the amended motion relate back to the original motion. The district court concluded that the motions attempted to assert unauthorized second or successive post-conviction relief claims, over which the court lacked jurisdiction to consider and therefore dismissed. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit found the district court did not err in its decisions, therefore the Court dismissed Petitioner's request for a COA and dismissed his appeal.

Petitioner Joel Ruelas-Rios sought judicial review of the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) order that reinstated his prior removal order. Petitioner is a native and citizen of Mexico. He applied for admission to the United States in 1998 by falsely representing himself as a lawful permanent resident of the United States. Petitioner presented another person’s valid Resident Alien Card at the border. Petitioner was removed that same day under expedited procedures. In 2011, Petitioner was detained in Kansas while attempting to enter McConnell Air Force Base to perform work as a contractor. DHS issued Petitioner notice of its intent to reinstate his prior removal order as an alien who illegally reentered the United States after having been previously removed. Petitioner petitioned for review of DHS's reinstatement order, raising a single contention: whether reinstatement of a prior removal order, without providing the alien a hearing before an immigration judge, is a violation of due process when the alien was also denied a hearing in connection with the prior removal order and had been in the United States for an extended period of time. Because Petitioner failed to establish any prejudice as a result of not being afforded a hearing before an immigration judge, his due process claim failed. The Tenth Circuit denied Petitioner's request for review.

Pro se prisoner Petitioner-Appellant Tracy Neiberger sought a certificate of appealability (COA) to challenge the district court's denial of his petition for habeas relief. Petitioner pled guilty to four counts of armed robbery in 1984. Petitioner did not file a motion to withdraw his plea, nor did he perfect a certiorari appeal to the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (OCCA). In fact, he did not take any action challenging the validity of his convictions until February 26, 2010. On that date, he filed a petition in state district court collaterally attacking his convictions and "alleging several propositions of error which he [claimed] entitled him to have his judgments and sentences vacated." The OCCA found "no plausible explanation” for Petitioner's twenty-five-year delay in challenging his convictions and guilty plea. Petitioner then filed his habeas petition, arguing he was denied effective assistance of counsel, that he was deprived due process and equal protection, and that the state district court imposed an unauthorized fine. The district court denied Petitioner's petition. Finding no error in the district court's holding, the Tenth Circuit denied Petitioner's application for a COA and dismissed his appeal.

Pro se prisoner Petitioner Terry Tyler appealed an order that dismissed his habeas petition for lack of jurisdiction. Petitioner filed his petition asserting that the Bureau of Prisons erroneously denied his request for pre-release transfer to a residential re-entry center. The district court granted the government’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, noting that at the time he filed the petition, Petitioner was detained in a federal prison facility in Virginia. The Tenth Circuit found that the district court's conclusion was indisputably correct, and affirmed the order of dismissal.

Pro se prisoner Petitioner Victor Rose sought a certificate of appealability (COA) to challenge a district court's denial of his petition for habeas relief. Petitioner argued his guilty plea was invalid, and his counsel ineffective. Petitioner pled guilty to second-degree burglary on June 13, 2007 and was sentenced to fifteen years imprisonment. The district court concluded his petition was untimely and there was no basis for equitable tolling. Because that decision was not even debatably incorrect, the Tenth Circuit denied his request for a COA and dismissed his appeal.

Pro se Defendant-Appellant Carlos Armendariz sought a certificate of appealability (COA) to challenge a district court's denial of his habeas petition. After a two-day trial, a jury convicted Defendant of possessing more than five pounds of cocaine with intent to distribute and of conspiracy. He received a sentence of 324 months' imprisonment. The Tenth Circuit affirmed his conviction on appeal. Defendant's habeas petition was initially reviewed by a magistrate judge, who construed it as raising two claims: (1) ineffective assistance of trial counsel; and (2) alleged error in the trial court’s replacement of a sworn juror with an alternate. The magistrate judge recommended that the petition be denied because Defendant procedurally defaulted on the juror claim and his pleadings lacked the specificity required to establish that his counsel was deficient. In his application for a COA, Defendant attempted to flesh out his ineffective assistance of counsel claim with additional facts. He did not address his second claim concerning the replaced juror. Upon careful review, the Tenth Circuit concluded Defendant did not make a substantial showing that he was denied his constitutional rights. Accordingly, the Court denied Defendant's request for a COA and dismissed his appeal.

Defendant-Appellant Brian Jones appealed a district court's revocation of his probation and the imposition of a thirty-three month term of imprisonment. Defendant's counsel filed an "Anders" brief, asserting he could find no meritorious basis for appeal and simultaneously moved to withdraw as counsel. In 2004, the government charged Defendant with possession of child pornography. The parties negotiated a plea deal with a five-year term of probation. In 2006, the district court accepted the plea agreement and sentenced Defendant, and imposed several special conditions of supervision he was required to comply with during his term of probation. In 2009, the probation office discovered Defendant had violated at least four of the special conditions in the district court’s judgment. Instead of revoking his probation, the district court held the matter in abeyance pending Defendant's completion of two in-patient treatment programs, one in California and one in Arizona. Defendant completed the program in California, but left the Arizona program prior to completing treatment. The district court afforded Defendant the opportunity to enroll in another treatment program, but Defendant failed to do so in a timely manner. In 2010, after a lengthy hearing on the matter, the district court granted the government's petition and revoked Defendant's probation. The court then sentenced him to thirty-three months' imprisonment, followed by a term of supervised release. Defendant directed his appellate counsel to contend the thirty-three month sentence imposed by the district court was unreasonably long. The Tenth Circuit agreed, as was recognized by counsel, that Defendant's challenge to the substantive reasonableness of his sentence was "undeniably meritless." The Court granted counsel's motion to withdraw, and dismissed Defendant's appeal.