Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant Martin Galindo sought a certificate of appealability (COA) to challenge a district court's dismissal of his motion for post conviction relief. The motion was denied and the Tenth Circuit affirmed on appeal. Defendant then sought relief from the denial of his motion by filing another motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6). The district court denied that motion too. Defendant pled guilty under a plea agreement to possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine and possession of a firearm in relation to a drug trafficking crime. Under the agreement, he waived his right to appeal or to bring a collateral attack on his conviction or sentence. Among other things, Defendant claimed that his defense counsel had been ineffective because he failed to file a direct appeal despite Defendant’s request, and this ineffectiveness entitled him to equitable tolling of the applicable statute of limitations. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit concluded that its earlier affirmation of the district court's dismissal of Defendant's motion for post conviction relief foreclosed any further proceedings. Accordingly, the Court denied Defendant's application for a COA and dismissed his appeal.

Pro se prisoner Petitioner Reyes Terrones-Lopez sought a certificate of appealability to challenge a district court's dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. Petitioner was indicted by a federal grand jury on ten counts alleging drug offenses. In compliance with an agreement with the government, he pled guilty to three counts charging distribution of cocaine. He waived his right to appeal or raise a collateral challenge to his guilty plea or sentence, except that he retained the right to challenge a sentence above the guidelines range. The district court entered judgment sentencing Petitioner on the three counts to 108 months in prison and dismissing the remaining counts. On appeal, Petitioner raised several claims for relief relating to alleged ineffective assistance of counsel and the timeliness of his attempts to appeal the sentence. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit found nothing in the record to suggest he received ineffective assistance of counsel, and that his motions for reconsideration were indeed untimely. Accordingly, the Court denied Petitioner's request for a COA and dismissed his appeal.

Pro se prisoner Petitioner Brandon Williams sought a certificate of appealability (COA) to challenge a district court's dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. In 2000, Petitioner pled guilty to one count of first-degree murder in Oklahoma state district court for which he was sentenced to life in prison. After his sentence, Petitioner moved to withdraw his plea. Petitioner then unsuccessfully petitioned for the writ of habeas corpus, denied for being untimely. Petitioner then turned to the Tenth Circuit for a COA to challenge the district court's dismissal of his petition. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit concluded Petitioner indeed filed his petitions outside the statute of limitations. As such, the Court denied Petitioner's request for a COA and dismissed his appeal.

Pro se prisoner Defendant Darrell Washington sought to appeal the district court's dismissal of his motion for post-conviction relief. The court found Defendant's motion was essentially an unauthorized second or successive motion for such relief. Defendant was sentenced to 360 months' imprisonment for drugs and weapons charges. Defendant contended that the district court erred by not considering his "legal-innocence" issues before it dismissed his motion. Defendant applied to the Tenth Circuit for a certificate of appealability (COA) to challenge the district court. "Because at its core Mr. Washington’s Rule 60(b) motion sought renewed consideration of claims already decided against him," the Tenth Circuit found that the district court properly dismissed Defendant's motion for lack of jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court denied Defendant's application for a COA and dismissed his appeal.

The issue before the Tenth Circuit in this case was the government's motion to enforce an appeal waiver contained in Defendant Shawndell Harrison's plea agreement. The defendant pled guilty to one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition. The district court sentenced defendant to 188 months' imprisonment. This sentence was below the statutory maximum of life imprisonment and at the high end of the 180 to 188 month advisory guideline range determined by the district court. In his plea agreement, Defendant "knowingly and voluntarily waive[d] his right" to "[a]ppeal or collaterally challenge his guilty plea." Despite this waiver, Defendant filed a notice of appeal, seeking to assert a claim that the district court erred in enhancing his sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA). On appeal to the Tenth Circuit, Defendant argued that it would be a miscarriage of justice to enforce the appeal waiver because "of the need to know whether the district court correctly applied the ACCA in calculating the correct sentence." The Tenth Circuit found however that "defendant's miscarriage-of-justice argument is simply a claim of sentencing error, and this court has repeatedly held that alleged sentencing errors do not establish that enforcement of the appeal waiver would be unlawful under the miscarriage-of-justice inquiry." The Court granted the government's motion and dismissed this appeal.

Appellant Gabriela Cordova-Soto petitioned the Tenth Circuit for review of a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) order reinstating her prior removal order under 8 U.S.C. 1231 (a)(5). Appellant is a native and citizen of Mexico, who entered the United States as a child and became a lawful permanent resident in 1991 at the age of 13. In 2005, DHS initiated removal proceedings against Appellant charging her as removable on three grounds: (1) as an aggravated felon; (2) as an alien convicted of two crimes involving moral turpitude; and (3) as an alien convicted of a controlled substance offense. Appellant had three Kansas state-law convictions, including a 2005 conviction for felony possession of methamphetamine for which she was sentenced to a suspended jail term of twenty months and eighteen months' probation. Appellant was found in 2010 in Wichita, Kansas and identified as an alien who had previously been removed. No criminal charges for illegal reentry were lodged against her, but DHS issued a Notice of Intent/Decision to Reinstate Prior Order, advising Appellant that she was subject to removal. Appellant argued to the Tenth Circuit that: (1) her underlying removal order was not lawful; and (2) her reentry into the United States after her previous removal was not illegal. On these bases she maintained that reinstatement of her previous removal order was precluded. Upon review of the DHS's determination and the applicable legal authority, the Tenth Circuit concluded Appellant failed to establish that DHS misconstrued the meaning of "reenters the United States illegally" in Sec. 1231 (a)(5): she was removed from the United States in 2005, and she admittedly reentered the country without the Attorney General's authorization shortly thereafter. Because she could not have entered the United States legally at that time, her reentry was illegal and she was therefore subject to reinstatement of her previous removal order. Accordingly, the Court denied Appellant's petition for review.

Payne County Jail Administrator Brandon Myers appealed a district court's order that denied his motion for summary judgment that asked for qualified immunity. While held as a pretrial detainee at the Payne County Jail, Plaintiff John David Palmer suffered from an infection of the flesh-eating methicillin-resistent staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) bacteria. The jail's medical transport officer took Plaintiff to Dr. Daniel Hill who did not diagnose Plaintiff as having MRSA, but drained the boils Plaintiff had developed, administered an injection of an antibiotic, and prescribed two more antibiotics for oral use at the jail. Dr. Hill advised that Plaintiff should return in two days for a follow-up visit, but warned that if Plaintiff developed a fever, he should be taken to the hospital. Ultimately, Plaintiff developed a fever, his condition worsened, and he alleged in his complaint against prison officials that their inattention or delay in taking him to the hospital caused him tremendous suffering and caused him to accumulate $24,000 in medical bills. Upon review of the trial court record and the applicable legal authority, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision to deny Mr. Myers qualified immunity.

Pro se prisoner Petitioner Eric Griffin appealed a district court's dismissal of his petition for the writ of habeas corpus. The court dismissed Mr. Griffinâs petition after he failed to respond to its order to show that (1) the court had jurisdiction over his claims, and (2) he stated a valid claim for federal habeas corpus relief. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit agreed with the district courtâs dismissal for lack of jurisdiction and denied his appeal.

Defendant-Appellant Alan Tukes appealed his federal conviction for bank robbery, arguing that the governmentâs evidence was insufficient to prove that the bank was insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (âFDICâ) at the time of the crime. At trial, a prosecutor asked the bankâs branch manager: âNow, the Compass Bank, is that a bank that is federally insured by the [FDIC]?â She responded: âYes, it is.â When asked whether the bank âhasâ any documentation proving its insured status, she replied: âYes. We have a certificate.â When asked whether the certificate âhangsâ in the branch, the manager replied in the affirmative. The district court admitted the certificate, dated November 8, 1993, into evidence. The government offered no additional evidence of the bankâs insured status. At summation, Defendant argued that the government had not proven that the bank was FDIC insured at the time of the robbery. The jury returned a guilty verdict. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, the Tenth Circuit concluded "it is clear that a rational juror could have concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that the bank was insured at the time of the robbery." The Court affirmed Defendant's conviction.

Plaintiff-Appellant Richard Martinez appealed the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. 1983 complaint. Plaintiff filed suit against Kevin Milyard and Susan Jones, his previous and current wardens, respectively. His complaint included a long list of grievances. Plaintiff alleged that prison employees erroneously billed him for repairs and medical services, confiscated his personal items without following the proper procedures, and failed to separate Plaintiff and another inmate after a physical altercation between them. He further contended that prison facilities lacked adequate amenities and that prison staff failed to provide him with time for fresh air and exercise. Finally, Plaintiff alleged that the Colorado Department of Corrections improperly garnished his deposits. Plaintiff's complaint failed, however, to tie any of these specific allegations to Milyard or to Jones. Because Plaintiff failed to advance "a reasoned, nonfrivolous argument on the law and facts in support of the issues raised on appeal," the Tenth Circuit affirmed dismissal of Plaintiff's case.