Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Petitioner Rodney Sampson was convicted in Oklahoma in 1996 on drug trafficking charges. He was paroled in 2002. The certificate of parole set Petitioner's discharge date to January 2008. In 2006, Petitioner was convicted in California on forgery charges. After serving his California sentence, Petitioner was extradited to Oklahoma and given a parole revocation hearing. Subsequently, Petitioner's parole was revoked in September 2008. Petitioner made several unsuccessful attempts to challenge the revocation of his parole, including filing motions for post-conviction relief and petitioning for a writ of habeas corpus. In this case, Petitioner applied to the Tenth Circuit for a certificate of appealability (COA) to seek the Court's review of those unsuccessful attempts. Petitioner asserted that the parole revocation was unlawful because his parole had been discharged before he was arrested in California and extraditing him to Oklahoma was a violation of his right to due process. Upon review of Petitioner's argument and the applicable legal authority, the Tenth Circuit held that Petitioner's claims were "not adequate to deserve further proceedings." Accordingly, the court denied Petitioner's request for a COA, and dismissed his appeal.

Co-defendants and co-appellants Ramon Guzman-Manzo and Giovanni Galvon-Manzo each pled guilty to one count of cocaine possession with the intent to distribute. Each was subject to a ten-year mandatory minimum sentence unless they qualified for a "safety-valve" reduction. Defendants would have qualified for such a reduction if the court found that, among other things, Defendants were truthful and forthcoming with the information they gave to the government in its investigation. The court found that provisions of the "safety-valve" were very broad, and required "disclosure of everything the defendant [knew] about his own actions and [of] those who participated in the crime with him." After hearing all testimony in the case, the court rejected the application of the safety-valve reduction to both defendants and sentenced each to 120 months' imprisonment. Defendants challenged the district court's determination of the truthfulness of certain witness' testimony. Upon review of Defendants' arguments in light of the trial record and applicable legal authority, the Tenth Circuit deferred to the district court's assessment of the testimony presented at trial. Defendants' appeal was predicated primarily on the lower court's assessment of the truthfulness of that testimony. The Tenth Circuit affirmed Defendants' sentences.

Defendant Linda Carnagie entered into a scheme to defraud the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) by using false information to obtain housing loans insured by the Federal Housing Administration (FHA). For a fee, a third party provided fake pay stubs, Social Security Numbers and other requisite documents to persons with no credit or bad credit so that they could apply for FHA-insured home loans. Defendant was one such person who paid for the fake documents. Defendant did not dispute that the loan application she made contained false information, nor did she dispute that her typewritten name appeared on most of the documents. Instead, Defendant argued that she never signed any of the documents and that fact proved she was not involved in the scheme. A jury convicted Defendant on several counts of making false statements. On appeal to the Tenth Circuit, Defendant argued that there was insufficient evidence to convict her of many of those counts, and she also challenged the length of her sentence. Upon consideration of Defendant's arguments, the Court found none persuasive. The Court affirmed Defendant's conviction and sentence.

In 2007, Petitioner Sandtas Metcalf pled guilty to drug possession charges. The written plea agreement contained a waiver of Petitioner's right to collaterally challenge his prosecution conviction or sentence. Petitioner was sentenced as a career offender under the federal Sentencing Guidelines based on three prior felony convictions. Petitioner sought a certificate of appealability (COA) from the Tenth Circuit so that he could appeal the district court's dismissal of his motion to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence. The Tenth Circuit's review of the record found that the district court's dismissal was not "deserving of further proceedings." The Court affirmed the lower court's dismissal and denied Petitioner's request for further appeal.

In 2003, Petitioner Jeffrey Zaring was arrested in Utah three times on drug charges. In 2004, the US Attorney's office filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus ad presequendum to arraign Petitioner on federal drug charges. Through the writ issues, Petitioner remained physically housed in a county jail. In order to try Petitioner on the state charges, Utah issued its own writ of habeas corpus ad presequendum later that year. Petitioner was sentenced in state court to a term of one to fifteen years, with the sentence to run concurrently with any sentence imposed for the pending federal charges. In 2005, Petitioner pled guilty to federal drug charges and was sentenced to 121 months' imprisonment to run concurrently with his state sentence. Petitioner was returned to state custody, and finished his state sentence. He received credit against his state sentence for the time he spent in a local county jail. Once his state sentence was complete, Petitioner was transferred to federal custody. After transfer, and after exhausting his administrative remedies, Petitioner unsuccessfully petitioned the district court seeking credit against his federal sentence for his pre-trial detention. Upon consideration of Petitioner's sentences, the Tenth Circuit found that Petitioner was not entitled to apply the pre-detention credit twice. The Court affirmed the district court's decision.

Petitioner Charles Medicine Blanket unsuccessfully appealed his conviction on sexual assault charges. He sought the writ of habeas corpus from the Tenth Circuit to challenge the district courtâs denial of his appeal. Though he committed his crimes in Colorado, Petitioner was arrested on the Rosebud Sioux Reservation in South Dakota, and was extradited back to Colorado to stand trial. On appeal to the Tenth Circuit, Petitioner argued that his Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated when he was arrested with an "invalid" federal warrant, and then removed from the reservation without an extradition hearing. Furthermore, Petitioner alleged that his trial attorney provided ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to challenge his arrest warrant and extradition. The district court concluded that Petitioner failed to exhaust "certain due process claims" in his state post-conviction proceedings before bringing his appeal to the district court. Specifically, Petitioner failed to pursue his due process claims through "one complete round of the stateâs appellate process." Upon careful consideration of the record and the applicable legal authority, the Tenth Circuit concluded that Petitioner did not exhaust his due process claims in the lower courts, and as such, the lower courts were correct in denying him the relief he sought.

Plaintiff Johnny Bass brought a civil rights case against Defendants Pottawatomie County Public Safety Center (the Jail) and its warden. A jury found that the jail acted with deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's safety when the evidence revealed Plaintiff was brutally beaten by another detainee while awaiting processing in an intake holding cell. As compensation for his injuries, the jury awarded Plaintiff $330,000 in damages. On appeal to the Tenth Circuit, the Jail argued that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient for the jury to hold it liable for Plaintiff's injuries. Upon careful consideration of the trial record and the Jail's own safety rules, the Tenth Circuit found ample evidence to support the jury's verdict and damages award. The Court affirmed the lower court's decision.

Petitioner Ioan Vasilu petitioned the Tenth Circuit for review of a removal order from the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). The BIA affirmed an immigration judge's determination that Petitioner was removable as a criminal alien. The Tenth Circuit determined that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the case. The Court found that Petitioner attempted to "collaterally attack" the underlying criminal conviction he received prompting his removal. Accordingly, the Tenth Circuit dismissed Petitioner's application.

In 2009, when Dodge City police officers pulled Defendant Eusebio Sierra-Ledesma over for speeding, they found that Defendant had been deported in 2008 with no new authority to reenter or remain in the U.S. A jury convicted Defendant of having been found in the U.S. illegally. Defendant appealed to the Tenth Circuit, arguing multiple errors at trial. The sum of Defendant's argument was that the government failed to prove its case against him. Upon review of the trial record and the applicable legal authority, the Tenth Circuit was "satisfied" that any error committed at trial was harmless. The Court found that the trial court instructed the jury multiple times throughout that Defendant was innocent until the government proved he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Furthermore, the record reflected substantial evidence to support the jury's verdict. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the jury's verdict.

On the morning his trial was set to commence, Defendant Mario Ochoa-Olivas pled guilty to one count of illegal reentry to the United States. Using the Sentencing Guidelines, the district court calculated an advisory range of ninety-two to one hundred fifteen months' imprisonment. The court ultimately settled on an eighty-month term. Defendant appealed the sentence, arguing that the district court "double counted" points given to his criminal history, thus leading to an unreasonable sentence. In this case, the Tenth Circuit held that "[w]e are bound by precedent and cannot say that the district court abused its discretion" when it reviewed Defendant's sentence in light of the Sentencing Guidelines and his criminal history. The Court affirmed the district court's calculation of Defendant's sentence.