Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Mexican national Defendant-Appellant Nicolas Cobos-Chachas pled guilty to unlawfully reentering the United States after deportation. At sentencing, the district court varied downward from the advisory guidelines range and sentenced him to thirty-eight months' imprisonment, which was three months below the bottom of the advisory guideline range. Defendant challenged the length of his sentence as substantively unreasonable in light of the sentencing factors listed in the Guidelines. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit found that "Mr. Cobos-Chachas' own perception that the sentencing factors compel[ed] a more marked variance [did] not rebut the presumption that his below-guideline sentence [was] substantively reasonable." Accordingly, the Court affirmed Defendant's sentence.

Plaintiff-Appellant Ed Henry appealed a district courtâs final judgment in favor of Defendants-Appellees police officers Jacob Storey and Amy Fangio after a jury trial. He contended that the district court erred in (1) granting judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) to these Defendants on two of his claims and (2) rejecting a proposed jury instruction. In 2008, Plaintiff filed a civil-rights complaint against several Defendants arising from a night-time police stop. Plaintiff, an African-American, was pulled over in a rental vehicle. He was ordered out, handcuffed, and placed in the back of a marked police vehicle. After an investigation, officers realized that the rental vehicle driven by Plaintiff had been erroneously reported as stolen. Plaintiff was then released. In his complaint, Plaintiff alleged that he was singled out because of his race, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. He also alleged that the officers used excessive force. Defendants put on no evidence. Plaintiff proposed a jury instruction to the effect that the officersâ compliance with standard operating procedures could not be considered in determining whether they used excessive force. The court did not so instruct the jury. The jury ultimately found that Officer Storey had not engaged in racial profiling and that Officer Fangio had not used excessive force. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit agreed with Defendants that the submitted jury instructions âcomprehensively and correctlyâ covered the elements of the excessive force claim. The Court affirmed the district court's decision in all other respects.

Defendant Juan Soto-Munoz applied to the Tenth Circuit for a certificate of appealability (COA) to challenge the district court's denial of his petition for the writ of habeas corpus. Defendant pleaded guilty to an indictment charging him with possession with the intent to distribute marijuana. His plea agreement included a waiver of his right to appeal or to pursue a collateral attack on any matter connected to his prosecution, conviction or sentence, except to the extent that the sentence exceeded the sentencing guidelines range determined by the district court. He was sentenced to 87 months' imprisonment, followed by four years of supervised release. Defendant attempted to appeal his conviction and sentence, but the Tenth circuit granted the government's motion to enforce the appeal waiver in the plea agreement. Upon re-review, the Tenth Circuit denied Defendant's COA application and dismissed his appeal, because "Defendant has shown no reason not to enforce his plea agreement's waiver of his right to pursue a collateral attack on his conviction and sentence."

Defendant Alfonzo Moya-Breton filed a motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. 2255 at the district court claiming that he had received ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel. The court denied the motion and Defendant's request for a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the denial. A jury convicted Defendant on "multiple counts," and he was sentenced to 360 months' imprisonment. According to Defendant's affidavit, after the district court pronounced sentence, he turned to his trial counsel and asked about an alleged maximum sentence of 17 years, but counsel said that "he did not know what happened." On appeal, Defendant argued: (1) that trial counsel "fail[ed] to negotiate, secure, and/or disclose a plea offer with the government where the evidence demonstrated overwhelming guilt;" (2) that trial counsel "grossly misadvised [him] of applicable laws, statutes, and potential sentencing exposure;â (3) that trial and appellate counsel "fail[ed] to object [to] an . . . inapplicable weapon enhancement;" and (4) that trial and appellate counsel "fail[ed] to investigate, discover, and exploit false testimony given by the governmentâs primary witness during trial." Upon review of the trial record, the Tenth Circuit concluded that Defendant failed to make a "substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." The Court denied his application for a COA and dismissed his appeal.

Pro se prisoner Defendant Franklin Kemp petitioned the Tenth Circuit for a certificate of appealability (COA) to challenge the district court's denial of his application for post-conviction relief. Defendant was convicted in 1999 on incest charges, and sentenced to 42 years' imprisonment. The district court denied Defendant's petition as untimely. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit also concluded that Defendant's petition was untimely. Accordingly, the Court denied Defendant's application for a COA and dismissed his appeal.

Defendant Erlin Ayala appealed his conviction for possession with the intent to distribute 50 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing methamphetamine. He argued that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress and that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction. Upon review of the trial court record, the Tenth Circuit concluded that the evidence was sufficient to convict Defendant. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the district court's order.

Pro se prisoner Petitioner Ronald Bishop sought a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the district court's denial of his petition for the writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner was convicted by an Oklahoma state-court jury of robbery with a dangerous weapon and aggravated attempt to elude a police officer after two or more previous convictions. He was sentenced to consecutive imprisonment terms of 55 years and 25 years for the two counts. The district court declined to address Petitioner's issues on appeal. Because the Tenth Circuit concluded Petitioner failed to make a "substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right," the Court denied his request for a COA and dismissed his appeal.

Pro se prisoner Petitioner-Appellant Cynthia Pinkey sought a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the district court's denial of his petition for the writ of habeas corpus. The district court dismissed Petitioner's habeas petition as time-barred and found no circumstances warranting equitable tolling. Petitioner claimed that Coloradoâs Department of Corrections (CDOC) violated her constitutional rights by miscalculating her sentence. The Tenth Circuit in its review found the district court's determination that Petitioner's petition was time barred and not eligible for equitable tolling was "not reasonably debatable." The Court denied Petitioner's application for a COA and dismissed her appeal.

Pro se prisoner Movant Michael Rains applied to the Tenth Circuit for a second or successive application for habeas corpus. In 2001, Movant pleaded guilty in Oklahoma state court to making a telephone bomb threat, robbery with a dangerous weapon, and robbery. He was sentenced to ten, twenty, and twenty years of imprisonment, respectively, with the sentences to run concurrently. He filed his first petition in federal district court in 2007, asserting that (1) his sentence was excessive because he was eighteen years old at the time of the offenses, he was a first-time offender, and the victims were uninjured; (2) his robbery sentences were illegal; (3) his guilty plea was not entered knowingly and voluntarily because he was not told he would need to serve at least 85% of the sentence for robbery with a dangerous weapon; and (4) his counsel was ineffective for coercing him to plead guilty, failing to inform him that he would serve 85% of the robbery-with-a-dangerous- weapon sentence, and inadequately negotiating the plea. In 2008 he filed another petition, re-asserting the first, third, and fourth claims. The district court decided this filing was an unauthorized second or successive petition. Because Movant sought to assert claims that the previously asserted, the Tenth Circuit denied him permission to proceed, affirming the district court's dismissal.

Bureau of Prisons officers searched Defendant-Appellant Odalis Perez-Jiminezâs person and cell at the Federal Correctional Institution in Florence, Colorado. In his pockets, they found two shanks. Defendant was indicted on one count of possession of a weapon while an inmate of a federal correctional institution. He pled guilty. At sentencing, the district court found that this offense conviction was a 'crime of violence' pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual, and that he was a career offender. Applying the career-offender provisions, the district court assigned Defendant an offense level of fourteen and a criminal history category of VI. These factors yielded an imprisonment range of thirty-seven to forty-six months and a fine range of $4000 to $40,000. The district court sentenced Defendant to thirty-seven monthsâ imprisonment and imposed a fine of $2000. On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court erred in sentencing him as a career offender because his latest conviction was not a 'crime of violence' and that the district court abused its discretion in imposing a $2000 fine. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision: "Mr. Perez-Jiminezâs fine is entitled to a presumption of reasonableness on appeal, which Mr. Perez-Jiminez ... failed to rebut. Accordingly, the district court did not substantively err by sentencing Mr. Perez-Jiminez to a $2000 fine."