Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant Manikhone Saignaphone pled guilty to conspiracy to defraud the government. The district court sentenced her to 26 monthsâ imprisonment. Defendant appealed the sentence, arguing that her sentence was unreasonable in light of the lesser sentences given to her co-conspirators. The Tenth Circuit reviewed the record and found that Defendant failed to overcome the presumption that her sentence was unreasonable. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the lower courtâs decision and Defendantâs sentence.

Petitioner-Appellant Ronald Hutchinson appealed the district court's dismissal of his habeas petition. He alleged his sentence and the application of mandatory parole violated his constitutional rights. Petitioner pled guilty to the distribution of drugs, which carried a sentence of imprisonment ranging from four to twelve years, plus five years of mandatory parole. Petitioner received a sixteen-year sentence, with five years of mandatory parole. The district court concluded that Petitioner did not make a substantial showing of the denial of his constitutional rights. "Because [the district court's] decision is not debatably incorrect," the Tenth Circuit denied petitioner's request for a Certificate of Appealability (COA), effectively dismissing his habeas petition.

Plaintiff-Appellee Kapelle Simpson-El appealed the district court's denial of his motion for post-conviction relief. His petition was based upon the alleged ineffectiveness of his trial counsel, arguing that his counsel misadvised him to abandon a plea agreement. Plaintiff was indicted for stealing cars, transporting them across state lines, changing the VINs, and selling the cars or the parts on the Internet. The government offered Plaintiff a plea deal, but Plaintiff felt the government based its case on bad evidence against him, and that trial would establish his innocence. The district court concluded that Plaintiff did not make a "substantial showing of the denial" of his constitutional rights. "Because [the district court's] decision is not even debatably incorrect," the Tenth Circuit denied Plaintiff's request for a Certificate of Appealability, effectively dismissing his motion.

Defendant-Appellant Jeremiah West appealed his sentence from multiple firearms and drugs charges. Defendant pled guilty to one count of possessing a firearm as a convicted felon in exchange for the governmentâs agreement to drop the other charges. In pleading guilty, Defendant admitted that he was a convicted felon, tried to evade police, and that he knowingly possessed the gun that was found in his car. Defendant was sentenced to 180 monthsâ imprisonment, which was at the low-end of the Sentencing Guidelinesâ range. In addition to the sentence, the district court ordered Defendant to pay restitution for the damage he caused when he tried to flee. On appeal, Defendant asserted that his âfleeingâ conviction was outside the ambit of the Sentencing Guidelines. Furthermore, he argued that the restitution order was an abuse of the courtâs discretion. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district courtâs sentence, finding it was within the Guidelines. However, the Court reversed the district courtâs order of restitution, finding that the lower court did not have the authority to exercise discretion on this matter. The Court remanded the case for further proceedings.

Defendant Ronald Creighton appealed the district courtâs denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained from three separate searches. To support his and his associatesâ drug habit, Defendant stole large quantities of personal mail from apartment buildings and condominiums in metropolitan Denver. Defendant used the information obtained to generate false identifications and counterfeit checks on a computer. Defendant and his associates then passed those checks to local businesses. Over an eighteen-month period, Defendant had four encounters with law enforcement officials, three of which lead to the evidence that was used at his trial. After reviewing the circumstances leading to each search, the Tenth Circuit found no violation of Defendantâs Fourth Amendment rights. The Court affirmed Defendantâs conviction and sentence.

A jury acquitted Defendant Kenneth Lain on firearms charges. After his acquittal, Defendant filed a motion for attorneyâs fees under the Hyde Amendment, 18 U.S.C. 3006A. The district court denied his motion, and Defendant appealed. The issue for review by the Tenth Circuit centered around whether the court could review the district courtâs denial of attorneyâs fees under the Hyde Amendment. The Hyde Amendment provides fee awards only in cases where the court abused its discretion. Upon review of the district courtâs record, the Tenth Circuit could not conclude that the lower court abused its discretion. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the lower courtâs decision to deny Defendant an award of attorneyâs fees.

Defendant-Appellant Neil Vigil was arrested after police pulled him over and found âa vast cache of counterfeit identificationsâ and other materials indicative of identity theft. Defendant ultimately reached a plea deal with the government. At sentencing, the district court applied a two-level enhancement under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines and imposed a fine. Defendant appealed the courtâs use of the enhancement and the imposition of the fine. Defendant argued that the enhancement only applied to âprofessional fences,â and that there was no evidence presented at trial that proved he sold any of the stolen property. Furthermore, Defendant argued that the imposition of the fine was the trial courtâs abuse of discretion. The Tenth Circuit agreed with Defendant, and held that the trial court misapplied the sentencing enhancements in his case. In addition, the Court found that the record did not reflect the âdistrict courtâs consideration of the pertinent factors prior to imposing the fine.â The Court vacated Defendantâs sentence and fine, and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Petitioner-Appellant Todd Deal appealed the district court's denial of his habeas petition. The petition was based on "a myriad of claims of constitutional violations." The district court denied both his petition and a Certificate of Appealability. The Tenth Circuit carefully reviewed the district court's "thorough and cogent" analysis of all that Petitioner raised in his appeal, and the Court was satisfied that "reasonable jurists would not find the district court's assessment of [Petitioner's] constitutional claims [as] debatable or wrong." The Court denied Petitioner's application for a Certificate of Appealability, and dismissed the matter.

Petitioner Felix Sanchez Rodriguez-Heredia, a Mexican national, petitioned the Tenth Circuit to review two decisions of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). One decision, a request for a change in Petitioner's custody status, was dismissed as moot, because Petitioner was deported while waiting for this appeal. The second decision involved the order to remove him from the United States. Petitioner argued that he was not eligible for removal based on his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude because he received nothing "of value" in perpetration of the crime. Specifically, Petitioner argued that a social security number was not like a good or service that constituted something of value that could be taken under Utah state law. Petitioner used another person's social security number in order to gain employment. The BIA found that Petitioner's fraud involved a crime of moral turpitude, and recommended his removal. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit found that because the state law required fraudulent intent in all circumstances regardless of whether anything of "value" was obtained, the law categorically described a crime involving moral turpitude. The Court upheld the BIA's order for Petitioner's removal.

Defendants-Appellants Adam Trestyn and Crystal Herren both challenged the district court proceedings that led to their guilty pleas for possession with the intent to distribute "ecstasy." Herren argued that the district court denied her Sixth Amendment right to counsel when it refused to continue a suppression hearing until her attorney-of-choice was present. Both defendants argued that the district court denied their Fourth Amendment rights by refusing to suppress the drugs discovered in their minivan during a traffic stop. After a thorough review of the lower court's record, the Tenth Circuit found that the district court did not deny Defendant Herren her Sixth Amendment right to counsel of choice, but that the district court was wrong in denying Defendants' motion to suppress the drugs found during the traffic stop. The Court vacated Defendants' sentences and remanded their cases for further proceedings.