Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Pro se prisoner Petitioner Sammy McMurray filed a series of appeals to the Tenth Circuit. He has been confined to the New Mexico Behavioral Health Instituteâs long-term care division. As could be discerned from Petitionerâs appellate brief, he challenged the evidence used to convict him. The district court dismissed his case without prejudice, but several months later, Petitioner filed a series of motions in an attempt to reopen the case. The district court denied those motions and advised Petitioner that it was considering filing restrictions. When Petitioner did not respond, the court entered its order imposing filing restrictions. Petitioner appealed only that order to the Tenth Circuit. After thoroughly reviewing Petitionerâs filings and the record in this case, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district courtâs order.

Pro se prisoners Petitioners Arnoldo Zapata and Humberto Galvan both sought a certificate of appeal from the Tenth Circuit to challenge their respective convictions for conspiracy to distribute cocaine. Petitioners were tried before a grand jury and sentenced to 235 months' imprisonment for Mr. Zapata, and 121 months for Mr. Galvan. The district court denied both Petitioners' motions to vacate, set aside or correct their sentences. Petitioners contended the district court erred in calculating their sentences. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit concluded that neither Petitioner made a "substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right" and denied their requests for certificates of appealability. The Court dismissed Petitioners' appeals.

Pro se prisoner Petitioner Cordell Nichols petitioned the Tenth Circuit for a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal a district court's dismissal of his motion to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence. The motion alleged that newly discovered evidence revealed numerous instances of ineffective assistance of his counsel, both prior to trial and at sentencing -- specifically his counsel's failure to properly investigate and object to "Brady" violations. Petitioner's convictions were based on three separate traffic stop incidents dating from 1999 to 2002. The Tenth Circuit reviewed the record, the district court's order, Petitioner's application for a COA and his proposed opening brief. The Court concluded he was not entitled to relief on either of his claims. The Court concluded it did not have to analyze Petitioner's every challenge to the district court's "extensive orders." Rather, the Court went to "the ultimate issue--whether [Petitioner] has shown prejudice by the actions of counsel or that of the prosecutors. Like the district court, [the Tenth Circuit concluded] he failed to show prejudice on either claim." The Court denied Petitioner's application for a COA and dismissed his appeal.

Defendant Steven Romero appealed his three year sentence for aggravated animal cruelty. In 2009, Defendant tied a rope around the neck of "Buddy," a dog belonging to a family in Delta, Colorado, and dragged him to death behind a pick-up truck on federal land. The United States Probation Office prepared a pre-sentence investigation report (PSR), indicating that while Defendant was in jail for killing Buddy and before pleading guilty, he made a series of telephone calls attempting to silence witnesses and procure false grand jury testimony. The PSR recounted Romeroâs ten prior felony convictions, poor physical health, mild mental retardation, amphetamine dependence, depression, and â[i]ntermittent [e]xplosive [d]isorder." The presumptive sentence for aggravated animal cruelty was 12-18 months, but that maximum could be doubled under certain circumstances. Upon review of the sentencing court's record, the Tenth Circuit concluded that the district court did not impose a substantively unreasonable sentence when sentencing Defendant to 36-months' imprisonment. The Court affirmed the lower court's judgment.

Plaintiff-Appellant Larry Snyder and Company appealed a district court's grant of summary judgment to Defendant-Appellee Clark Miller, which did business as American Underground Utilities. Snyder and Miller entered into a subcontract agreement under which Miller would install utility trenches underneath what would become a parking lot for an apartment complex. Miller performed the work, but once the asphalt for the lot was installed, the trenches settled and the parking lot was damaged. Snyder requested that Miller repair the entire parking lot, but Miller refused, arguing that the subcontract only required it to repair areas of the lot that actually settled. Upon review by the Tenth Circuit, the court affirmed the district court's order that held that the subcontract unambiguously governed the extent of the repair required by Miller. Accordingly, the Court held that no genuine issue of material fact existed regarding Miller's liability for repair work that exceeded the requirements of the subcontract.

Defendant-Appellant Michael Cooper was convicted by jury on one count of conspiracy to defraud, and multiple counts of mail and wire fraud, money laundering and engaging in transactions derived from unlawful activity. Defendant filed several motions with the district court including motions for a judgment of acquittal, a post-verdict motion for a new trial, and a motion to suppress evidence under the Fourth Amendment. The district court denied them all. On appeal, Defendant challenged the district court's denial of those motions. Upon review of the trial court record and the applicable legal authority, the Tenth Circuit found Defendant failed to prove that the evidence presented against him at trial was insufficient to support his convictions. Therefore the Court affirmed the district court's denials of Defendant's motions for judgment of acquittal, for a new trial, and to suppress evidence, and affirmed Defendant's convictions.

Defendant Jodi Hoskins was convicted of tax evasion after she and her husband failed to pay taxes for income they earned through their Salt Lake City escort service. The government contended the Hoskins' failed to account for more than one million dollars in income generated in cash payments and credit card receipts. At sentencing, the government's tax loss was relevant to potential jail time and restitution under the United States Sentencing Guidelines. To minimize the tax loss for sentencing purposes, the Hoskins' offered hypothetical tax returns to account for the unreported income and attempted to take deductions they claimed they would have been entitled to but for the tax evasion. The district court rejected the hypothetical tax returns and accepted the government's tax-loss estimate. Defendant appealed her eventual sentence, arguing the sentencing judge abused his discretion in establishing the lost taxes. Furthermore, Defendant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence presented against her and the reasonableness of her sentence. Finding no abuse of discretion, and that the evidence presented at trial sufficient to support her sentence, the Tenth Circuit affirmed Defendant's conviction.

Pro se prisoner Petitioner David Chitwood sought a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the denial of his application for habeas relief. In 1993, Petitioner was temporarily transferred from the custody of the Missouri Department of Corrections to Colorado to stand trial in Colorado on burglary and forgery charges. Petitioner was sentenced to twenty-year concurrent prison terms for burglary and eight years on the forgery count. The Colorado sentences were to run consecutive to his Missouri sentences. Petitioner was then returned to Missouri and remained there until 1998 when he was transferred to serve his Colorado sentences. In 2009, Petitioner pled guilty to felony menacing in Colorado and was sentenced to a six year term to run consecutive to his earlier Colorado sentence. Petitioner sought a COA from the Tenth Circuit when his application for COA was denied in the district court. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit found that Defendant did not exhaust his state remedies and did not argue that exhaustion would have been futile. Therefore, the Tenth Circuit held that "no reasonable jurist could debate that the district court erred in dismissing" Petitioner's COA application. Accordingly, the Court denied Petitioner's application for a COA and dismissed his appeal.

A federal jury found Defendant Barry Keck guilty on eight counts relating to a drug and money-laundering conspiracy in Wyoming. Defendant appealed his conviction, contending that the jury's verdict rested on insufficient evidence and improper evidentiary decisions by the district court. He also contended that the court erred in applying the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. Upon careful consideration of the trial court record and applicable legal authority, the Tenth Circuit found no legal basis to reverse Defendant's conviction, and no error in the district court's application of the sentencing guidelines. The Court affirmed the district court's decision and Defendant's conviction.

Utah County Deputy Sheriff Scott Jensen appealed a district court's ruling that he was not entitled to qualified immunity on claims brought against him by Appellee William Rieck that alleged illegal entry, illegal detention and use of excessive force. The claims arose out of an incident on Mr. Rieck's 17-acre property in an unincorporated part of Utah County. The district court ruled that the deputy was not entitled to immunity because he entered a closed gate on Mr. Rieck's property without a warrant. On appeal, Mr. Rieck did not argue any alternative grounds for denying Deputy Jensen qualified immunity. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit reversed the district court's holding, and remanded the case for entry of summary judgment on those claims. The Court found that the area of Mr. Rieck's property that the deputy entered was not within the curtilage of Mr. Rieck's home, therefore, the deputy could enter the property without a violation of Mr. Rieck's constitutional rights.