Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant Brian Charles Olinger appealed the eighteen-month term of imprisonment the district court imposed after he pled guilty to three Grade C violations of his supervised release. On September 30, 2009, Defendant was sentenced to fifteen monthsâ imprisonment and 120 monthsâ supervised release on one count of failing to register as a sex offender. Defendant expressly raised a substantive challenge to his eighteen-month term of imprisonment, arguing that his sentence was too long because it was more than triple the low end of the advisory guideline range and because it reflected punishment for possession of child pornographyâan allegation made in a violation the government agreed to dismiss because defendant did not admit that he possessed it and the government could not prove that he did. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit "[could not] conclude that the district court abused its discretion by imposing a sentence of eighteen months." The Court affirmed Defendant's conviction and sentence.

Ruben Flores-Olmos pleaded guilty to one count of being an alien in the United States after deportation but reserved his right to appeal the district court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence acquired during a traffic stop. On appeal, Flores-Olmos argued that he was the victim of racial profiling. He further contended that the Oklahoma seat belt law is ambiguous and that the doctrine of lenity should absolve him. Finding no error in the district court's refusal to suppress evidence of Flores-Olmosâs illegal presence in the United States, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision.

In January 2009, Defendant-Appellant Robert Blechman and a codefendant, Itsik (Issac) Yass, were tried together in the District of Kansas on charges of mail fraud, aggravated identity theft, and conspiracy to commit mail fraud and aggravated identity theft. Evidence introduced at trial showed that Yass operated a business that he used to temporarily halt home foreclosures by "attaching" foreclosure properties to fraudulent bankruptcy cases in order to take advantage of the Bankruptcy Codeâs automatic stay provision. After a two-week trial, the jury found Blechman and Yass guilty of all of the counts charged against them. The district court granted Blechman's motion for judgment of acquittal on the identity theft counts and ultimately sentenced Blechman to a total of eighteen months' imprisonment on the remaining counts. Blechman appealed, challenging the district courtâs admission of an America Online (AOL) record that connected him to an e-mail address and three PACER records revealing that he accessed fraudulent bankruptcy cases in Tennessee that were similar to the Kansas bankruptcies identified in the indictment. Blechman argued that these records contained double hearsay and that the district court erroneously admitted them under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit held that the district court erred in admitting the challenged AOL and PACER records under Rule 803(6). Nevertheless, because the Court concluded that the error was harmless, it affirmed Blechman's convictions.

Defendant-Appellee Carl Roy Burleson and two companions were stopped by a Roswell police officer because they were walking in the middle of the street and because they were carrying an unleashed dog, which aroused the officerâs suspicions. After telling the three individuals that they were not permitted to walk in the street and satisfying himself that the dog was not stolen, the officer asked the individuals for their names and requested a warrants check on each of them. Police dispatch informed the officer that Defendant had an outstanding warrant, and during the ensuing arrest, the officer found two handguns and ammunition on Defendant. In the district court, Defendant moved to suppress evidence of the handguns and ammunition as fruit of an unlawful seizure under the Fourth Amendment. The district court granted the motion, concluding that at the time the officer obtained Defendant's identity and requested the warrants check, the officer had already completed the purposes of the detention and thus he had no lawful basis to further detain Defendant. The government appealed that decision. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit found that the district court erred in concluding that Defendant's stop had been completed when the officer ran the warrants check against Defendant. Furthermore, the Court concluded that the district court's factual finding that the officer had "no objective basis for fearing for his safety" was "clearly erroneous." The Court reversed the district court's grant of Defendant's motion to suppress, and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Murray County Oklahoma deputy sheriff Craig Billings, and City of Sulphur Police Officers Steve Watkins and Tony Simpson appealed a district courtâs denial of their motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. Joshua Burchett is Plaintiffs Christina Mascorroâs son and Jose Mascorroâs 17-year-old stepson. Billings conducted a traffic stop of Joshua because the teenager was missing taillights. Instead of stopping, Joshua drove two blocks to his parentsâ house, ran inside, and hid in the bathroom. The evening ended with the Mascorro familyâs arrest, charged with obstructing a police officer in the performance of his duties. All charges against the Mascorros were dismissed. The Mascorros brought this action against Billings, Watkins and Simpson asserting claims of unlawful entry, excessive use of force, false arrest, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution. Watkins and Simpson moved for dismissal on the excessive force and malicious prosecution claims. The district court dismissed the Mascorrosâ claims against Watkins and Simpson under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure but left all other claims intact. The district court granted Billings, Simpson, and Watkinsâ motions on claims against them in their official capacities, but denied summary judgment on all other issues, including their qualified immunity defense. The officers brought this interlocutory appeal on the single issue of whether they were entitled to qualified immunity. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit concluded: "[w]hile hot pursuit of a felon might be sufficient, neither the Supreme Court nor this Court has ever found an entry into a personâs home permissible based merely on the pursuit of a misdemeanant. [. . .] No reasonable officer would have thought pursuit of a minor for a mere misdemeanor traffic offense constituted the sort of exigency permitting entry into a home without a warrant. [. . .] As the evidence and reasonable inferences regarding that single claim, hot pursuit of a traffic offender, taken in the light most favorable to the Mascorros demonstrate[d] a violation of a clearly established constitutional right," the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district courtâs decision.

Appellants F. Jeffrey Miller and Hallie Irvin were charged in an eleven-count indictment with a variety of crimes stemming from an alleged conspiracy to defraud mortgage lenders in connection with the subprime housing market. After a month-long jury trial, Miller and Irvin were each convicted on several of the charges and sentenced. They appealed their convictions, citing numerous evidentiary and legal errors. Miller also challenged his sentence. Miller was a builder and developer involved in residential construction in Kansas, Missouri, and other states. With many competing developers marketing their homes to well-qualified buyers, Miller chose to focus his business on buyers with low income and poor credit. The marketing of Millerâs homes was handled by Stephen Vanatta, who would refer potential buyers to a mortgage broker named James Sparks for financing. Because a prior felony conviction for passing a bad check prohibited Vanatta from maintaining a checking account, his portion of commissions were paid by checks issued to his wife, appellant Irvin. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit found the district court erred on three of the eleven charges against Defendant Miller, but affirmed the district court in all other aspects. The Court remanded the case for further proceedings.

Prisoner (Defendant) Grover Miskovsky, a prisoner of the State of Oklahoma, brought claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983 in district court alleging that Justin Jones, Director of the Oklahoma Department of Corrections (ODOC), had violated his constitutional rights by seizing the money in his prison draw account. The district court granted Jones summary judgment on the constitutional claims, dismissed without prejudice Defendantâs challenge to his state sentence, and gave him leave to amend. After Defendant filed an amended complaint, which named additional defendants, the court dismissed his new claims. Defendant then brought this appeal. In 2000, and Oklahoma state court sentenced Defendant to consecutive terms of 84 yearsâ imprisonment for racketeering, 7 yearsâ imprisonment for indecent exposure, and 2 yearsâ imprisonment for attempted perjury by subordination. The court ordered that that he pay fines, compensation to victims, and costs by using his entire draw account. The prison made no payment from Defendantâs draw account for his state-court fines and costs until 2006. The prison made additional periodic payments toward the amount owed until 2007. In his appeal, Defendant alleged that ODOCâs use of his entire draw account to pay his fines and court costs violated the Eighth Amendment prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment as well as the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees of due process and equal protection. A federal magistrate judge recommended that the complaint be dismissed. The district court adopted the recommendation, dismissing most claims with prejudice, although it dismissed without prejudice Defendantâs state-law claims and some claims not factually related to the alleged misuse of his draw account. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district courtâs decision to dismiss Defendantâs case.

In 2010, a federal jury convicted Defendant Risheen Robinson of distributing crack cocaine in violation. After trial, the district court found that Defendant qualified as a âcareer offenderâ under U.S.S.G. 4B1.1 in light of various convictions he had accumulated dating back to 1994. Because of this, the court sentenced him to 262 months in prison and six years of supervised release. On appeal, Defendant attacked the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction and the substantive reasonableness of his sentence. Viewing the evidence through a âdeferential prism,â the Tenth Circuit concluded âa reasonable jury could well have found Defendant guilty as charged.â Finding none of Defendantâs arguments persuasive, the Tenth Circuit affirmed Defendantâs sentence.

Pro se prisoner Petitioner Richard Sigala sought a certificate of appealability (COA) from the Tenth Circuit to appeal the district courtâs dismissal of his habeas petition as time barred. After a jury convicted Petitioner of first-degree murder, armed robbery, tampering with evidence, and conspiracy, a New Mexico state court imposed a total sentence of life plus eleven yearsâ imprisonment, followed by two years of statutory parole. Represented by counsel, Petitioner appealed his convictions. The New Mexico Supreme Court vacated his conviction for armed robbery but affirmed all others. Because Petitionerâs armed robbery sentence ran concurrently with his murder sentence, his total sentence remained unchanged, except he received only one year of statutory parole. Three years later, Petitioner unsuccessfully petitioned the New Mexico state courts for the writ of habeas corpus before turning to the federal courts. The petition eventually came before a magistrate judge who recommended it be dismissed with prejudice because it was filed several years after Petitionerâs conviction became final. The district court adopted the recommendation and dismissed the petition. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit concluded "no reasonable jurist could conclude the district courtâs dismissal was incorrect." Accordingly, the Court denied Petitionerâs application for a COA and dismissed his appeal.

A jury convicted Defendant Cesar Acosta-Gallardo on one count of conspiracy to traffic methamphetamine, and on one count of using a telephone to facilitate a felony drug offense. Defendant appealed his conviction, alleging a variance, a "Brady" violation, improper venue, and that insufficient evidence was presented to sustain his conviction for alleged trafficking. Upon review of the trial court record and Defendantâs appellate brief, the Tenth Circuit concluded the government presented ample evidence of interdependence among Acosta-Gallardo and his co-defendants: "[d]rawing reasonable inferences in favor of the juryâs verdict, ample evidence existed to support the juryâs finding that Acosta-Gallardo [was] involved in a single conspiracy. Thus, Acosta-Gallardoâs sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge fails." The Court affirmed the lower courtâs decisions in all other respects, and affirmed Defendantâs convictions.