Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant Leobardo Moralez-Ramirez challenged the district court's dismissal of his applications for post-conviction relief. He was convicted after a jury trial for conspiring to distribute heroin and sentenced to 240 months' imprisonment. His initial appeals were dismissed as untimely. More than two years after the Tenth Circuit affirmed his convictions, Defendant filed his application for a certificate of appealability (COA), arguing that the one-year limitation period in 28 U.S.C. 2255 should be equitably tolled under the "actual innocence exception," and that multiple constitutional errors in his pre-sentence investigation report warranted further judicial review. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit found that Defendant did not establish his entitlement to a COA. The Court denied Defendant's COA and dismissed his remaining appeals.

Defendant Louis Warren challenged the district court's dismissal of his application for a certificate of appealability (COA). The court found that Defendant's application was barred by the one-year limitations period of 28 U.S.C. 2244. Defendant pled guilty to racketeering in Colorado state court and was sentenced to 29 years' imprisonment. Defendant did not appeal his conviction or sentence. In 2008, approximately 20 months after the final denial of his previous motions, Defendant unsuccessfully moved the state court to correct his sentence. The district court dismissed his appeal as untimely. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit found that Defendant did not establish his entitlement to a COA. The Court denied Defendant's COA, and dismissed his remaining appeals.

Defendant Jesus Balbin-Mesa appealed his sentence after he pled guilty to a charge of reentering the United States after having been deported. In March 2010, Defendant filed a motion to ask for a downward adjustment from the applicable sentencing guideline range. The district court considered it "sufficient, but not greater than necessary" to sentence Defendant to twenty-eight months' imprisonment. The court ordered a two-year period of supervised release, and added a special condition that Defendant not reenter the United States again without prior legal authority. The court warned Defendant that if he violated the special condition, he would be "immediately be placed in prison and likely have to serve a longer sentence." At the end of the hearing, the court asked whether Defendant had anything else to present to the court. Defendant did not object then to the sentence, but he appealed it to the Tenth Circuit. The Tenth Circuit noted that Defendant provided his own assessment of the statutory sentencing factors "making an oblique argument (unsupported by case authority) that the district court should have varied more than it did." However, none of Defendant's arguments showed "reversible error." Accordingly, the Court affirmed the lower court's sentence.

Defendant-Appellant Alex Maestas appealed the district court's calculation of his sentence for attempting to steal a piece of gold from Los Alamos National Laboratory. The gold was a piece of solder used to repair a device used to melt materials containing plutonium. The gold itself was contaminated with plutonium. The sentencing court used an enhancement for "the conscious or reckless risk of death or serious bodily injury." Defendant argued that the enhancement could only apply if the government proved that he was aware of the risk in taking the contaminated gold would create, and that he consciously or recklessly disregarded that risk. Upon review of the trial court record, the Tenth Circuit found that the district court could have reasonably inferred that the gold Defendant removed from the lab was radioactive. The Court affirmed Defendant's sentence, finding the evidence against him sufficient to support the lower court's enhancement.

Petitioner Alfonso Jiminez-Guzman sought review of a removal order issued by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). On appeal, he argued that the agency erred in denying his request for a continuance and by applying an incorrect legal standard to the evidence of his controlled-substance conviction. Petitioner was a lawful permanent resident to the United States. In 2009, the Department of Homeland Security issued a notice-to-appear to Petitioner, charging that he was subject for removal due to a 2002 Colorado conviction for heroin possession. The Immigration Judge granted Petitioner two continuances so that he could obtain counsel. Once he obtained counsel, Petitioner unsuccessfully petitioned to cancel his removal. Upon review of Defendant's conviction record and the BIA's proceedings, the Tenth Circuit found "clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence" to support Defendant's removal. The Court found BIA committed no error in dismissing Petitioner's appeal.

Over the course of six days in August 2004, Defendant Samuel Rushin and an accomplice robbed six convenience stores in Wichita at gunpoint. A year later, a jury convicted Defendant on multiple robbery and firearms charges. Defendant was sentenced to 139 years' imprisonment. On second-appeal to the Tenth Circuit, Defendant claimed he was entitled to post-conviction relief because he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to counsel when his trial attorney failed to seek dismissal of his indictment on violation of "speedy trial." The standard measure of prejudice in the context of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim is the effect of the attorney's deficient performance on the result or outcome. The Tenth Circuit found that Defendant "in no sense has proven the substantial likelihood of a result different from that he now faces." Therefore, the Court affirmed the district court's dismissal of his petition for relief.

Defendant Michael Jordan appealed his sentence of 210 months' imprisonment on drug charges. He raised three issues for the Tenth Circuit's review. All issues pertained to alleged errors at the trial court: the calculation of his sentence, the alleged insufficient evidence presented against him, and the effectiveness of his trial counsel. Upon careful consideration of the issues Defendant raised in his appeal and the applicable legal authority, the Tenth Circuit found no merit to his arguments. The Court affirmed the lower court's decision and upheld Defendant's sentence.

Defendant-Appellant Rigoberto Martinez-Haro was indicted with two counts of methamphetamine possession with intent to distribute. Before trial, Defendant's counsel requested he undergo a psychiatric evaluation to determine his competency to stand trial. A doctor performed the evaluation and concluded that Defendant was "likely not competent." The doctor recommended more testing in Spanish by a Spanish speaking doctor. The government moved for a second competency hearing based on the doctor's recommendation which the district court granted. Defendant objected and filed an interlocutory appeal with the Tenth Circuit to challenge the district court's order. The Tenth Circuit found legitimate reasons for the district court to order a second competency examination. The Court concluded after a review of the doctor's report that it would have been "prudent" for the court to order the additional examination. Finding no abuse of discretion by the district court, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the lower court's decision.

Pro se Appellant Janos Toevs appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment to Defendants in his 42 U.S.C. 1983 civil-rights suit. Appellant's lawsuit pertained to the Colorado prison system's "Quality of Life Level Program" (QLLP). The QLLP program was described as a "stratified quality of life program based on increased levels of privileges for demonstrated appropriate offender behavior." Level 1 is the most restrictive, and each successive level offers an inmate more privileges. Appellant was placed in the QLLP in 2002 after attempting to escape. By September 2005, he had reached the least restrictive Level 6, but due to poor health was regressed back to Level 1. By 2009, Appellant had achieved Level 6 again and rejoined the general prison population. Appellant complained that during his placement in the QLLP from 2005 to 2009, his case managers' periodic reviews were "perfunctory, meaningless, and all said the same thing." He sued his case workers and the warden in their individual capacities. In affirming the district court's dismissal of Appellant's case, the Tenth Circuit found that the standards for meaningful periodic review for inmates in the QLLP were not previously clearly established in the Circuit. As such, the Court found that Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity from Appellant's suit.

Defendant-Appellant James Krolopp pled guilty to one count of possessing a sawed-off shotgun and possessing with intent to distribute 50 grams of methamphetamine. The district court sentenced him to 120 monthsâ imprisonment for the shotgun, and 135 monthsâ imprisonment for the methamphetamine, each sentence to be served concurrently. Denver police officers executed a search warrant at Defendantâs home. During the search, they found over 200 grams of methamphetamine in rooms throughout the house. While inside, officers noticed an extensive display of edged weapons such as knives affixed to the walls. In a search of the bedroom, officers observed a large picture hanging over the bed attached with âVelcro.â When officers detached the picture from the wall, the sawed-off shotgun fell from behind the picture onto the bed. On appeal, Defendant challenged his sentence on the methamphetamine possession, arguing that the district court should not have applied a two-level enhancement under the US Sentencing Guidelines based on his possession of the shotgun during the commission of the methamphetamine offense. Upon review of the district court record and the applicable legal authority, the Tenth Circuit affirmed Defendantâs sentences.