Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant–Appellant Mark Davis was convicted by a jury of robbery, use of a firearm during a robbery, and being a felon in possession of a firearm. He was sentenced to 96 months’ imprisonment on the robbery count, 180 months’ imprisonment on the felon-in-possession count, consecutive to the robbery count, and 84 months’ imprisonment on the use-of-a-firearm count, consecutive to the other two counts, for a total of 360 months. He also was sentenced to three years’ supervised release on each count running concurrently. On appeal, he challenged: (1) the denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized from a car in which he was a passenger; (2) the jury instructions insofar as they allowed the jury to convict him of aiding and abetting without the requisite knowledge or participation; and (3) sufficiency of the evidence concerning a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentences. View "United States v. Davis" on Justia Law

Lawrence Lucero pled guilty to three counts of receipt of child pornography and two counts of possession of child pornography. At sentencing, the district court increased Lucero's offense level by five based on section 2G2.2(b)(5) of the United States Sentencing Guidelines for having engaged in a pattern of activity involving the sexual abuse or exploitation of a minor. Lucero triggered this increase by admitting to sexually touching two young nieces in the 1960s and 1970s. He was sentenced to 78 months in prison (the lower limit of his Guidelines range) followed by 15 years supervised release. Lucero appealed his sentence as both procedurally and substantively unreasonable. Finding no abuse of the district court's discretion, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the sentence. View "United States v. Lucero" on Justia Law

Defendant-appellant Terry Thomas was charged in federal court with selling crack cocaine and maintaining a place to manufacture, distribute, or use a controlled substance. He went to trial 146 days after his arraignment. At the trial, an informant testified that she had bought crack cocaine three times from appellant. The jury found appellant guilty on: (1) three counts of possession of crack cocaine with intent to distribute; and (2) two counts of using or maintaining a place for the manufacture or distribution of crack cocaine. The court convicted and sentenced appellant to five concurrent prison terms of 130 months. Appellant raised nine issues on appeal to the Tenth Circuit, raising alleged errors of evidence, trial procedure, constitutional violations and miscalculation of sentence. The Tenth Circuit reviewed all of appellant's claims, and affirmed all but his sentence: the Court remanded the case for recalculation of appellant's sentence. View "United States v. Thomas" on Justia Law

After a suspicious death in a New Mexico prison cell, police identified Paul Smalls, the victim's cellmate, and two other men as the perpetrators. Their scheme was to smother the victim, and then claim he died of an asthma attack. At trial, the government pointed to "signature quality" evidence that Smalls had threatened his asthmatic ex-wife in a similar fashion five months before the murder. Smalls and the other men were found guilty of the murder. Smalls appealed his conviction, arguing that he received a fundamentally unfair trial because: (1) the district court erred in several of its evidentiary rulings, including allowing the testimony of his ex-wife about his prior statement; (2) the government committed prosecutorial misconduct; (3) the court abused its discretion in denying certain jury instructions; and (4) there was insufficient evidence to sustain his convictions. Finding no reversible errors, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "United States v. Small" on Justia Law

Codefendants Michael Griggs and Charles Sharp appealed their convictions for mail fraud and conspiracy to commit mail fraud. Griggs also challenged a $500,000 fine that was imposed by the district court as part of his sentence. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "United States v. Sharp" on Justia Law

Stanley Hill appealed conviction on several charges related to the robbery of a bank. During trial, Charles Jones, a special agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), testified as an expert. And when the prosecutor asked about Stanley's repeated invocations of God in support of his truthfulness, Jones stated, "My training has shown me, and more[ ]so my experience in all these interviews, when people start bringing faith into validating [] their statements, that they're deceptive. Those are deceptive statements." Stanley did not contemporaneously object to the admission of this evidence. Nevertheless, the Tenth Circuit concluded the court plainly erred in admitting this testimony and, in the Court's opinion, in light of the relative weakness of the government's overall case, that it affected Stanley's substantial rights. The Court concluded that this appeal was one of the exceptional cases in which it exercised its discretion to notice the plain error because failing to do so would seriously undermine the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.View "United States v. Hill" on Justia Law

In 2005, a Kansas state court jury convicted Kenneth Frost of aggravated indecent liberties with a child in violation of Kansas state law. His attorney failed to obtain the child’s medical records, which could have been used to impeach the child’s mother and challenge the prosecution’s corroborative evidence. Frost moved for a new trial based on ineffective assistance of counsel. After conducting hearings, the state trial court denied the motion and sentenced Frost to 204 months in prison. The Kansas Court of Appeals (KCOA) affirmed. Although it determined that Frost’s trial counsel provided deficient performance by failing to request the child’s medical records, the KCOA concluded counsel’s performance did not prejudice Frost. The Kansas Supreme Court denied discretionary review. Frost then sought a writ of habeas corpus in federal court, arguing: (1) his attorney’s failure to investigate the child’s medical records violated his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel; and (2) several other claims involving ineffective assistance and prosecutorial misconduct. The federal district court denied relief on the first ineffective assistance claim relating to the child’s medical records because of the deference owed to state court decisions on the merits under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA). The court dismissed Frost’s remaining claims as procedurally barred. It nonetheless issued Frost a Certificate of Appealability on “the [sole] issue [of] whether [Mr. Frost’s] trial counsel was unconstitutionally ineffective in failing to investigate the child’s medical records.” Frost appealed to the Tenth Circuit, arguing: (1) the district court incorrectly denied relief on the merits of his ineffective assistance claim; and (2) the Court should also grant relief on his procedurally barred claims. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of habeas relief on the first issue. As to his second issue, the Court denied a COA on all remaining claims. View "Frost v. McKune, et al" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Miguel Castro-Perez appealed the district court's judgment sentencing him to sixty-three months’ imprisonment and three years’ supervised release, arguing the court improperly applied a two-level sentencing enhancement for possession of a firearm in connection with a drug trafficking offense. Finding that the district court erred in calculating defendant's sentence, the Tenth Circuit reversed and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Castro-Perez" on Justia Law

Defendant-appellant Tina Wiseman appealed her sentence on one count of conspiring to distribute oxycodone following a guilty plea. She argued on appeal that the federal district court erred by refusing to consider the disparity between her sentence and similarly situated defendants sentenced in Utah state court. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the sentence defendant received. View "United States v. Wiseman" on Justia Law

Defendant Carl Romero was convicted by a jury of assaulting and killing Naayaitch Friday. He appealed the district court’s refusal to suppress evidence found after searches of the car he drove and his bedroom. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit concluded the search warrant for the car was supported by probable cause and that investigating officers properly relied on his stepfather’s consent to search his bedroom. View "United States v. Romero" on Justia Law