Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant Philip Grigsby appealed his 260-year sentence imposed pursuant to the child pornography production guideline, U.S.S.G. 2G2.1. He argued the guideline was procedurally and substantively unreasonable because it was “defective.” According to Defendant, the production guideline routinely generates offense levels that result in a recommended guideline sentence in excess of the statutory maximum, and fails to distinguish between levels of culpability by establishing enhancements for conduct present in most cases and thus undeserving of punishment beyond the core offense. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence: "a district court does not err by deferring to the Guidelines where the sentence imposed is justified in light of the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. 3553(a)." View "United States v. Grigsby" on Justia Law

In August 2009, defendant Tracy Morgan and his friend, Marvin Tabor, plotted to kidnap and rob Mario Armendariz. Tabor's brother-in-law, defendant Augustus Sanford, persuaded a police officer's minor child to steal four weapons and parts of a police uniform (cargo pants, a black police shirt, and an orange reflective vest) from his father in exchange for two ounces of marijuana. Sanford also painted his Chevrolet Tahoe black. Pursuant to their plan, Morgan attached a GPS tracking device to Armendariz's car while Armendariz was visiting Tabor's home. Tabor then tracked Armendariz's location on the Internet using Google Maps, enabling Morgan and defendant Killiu Ford to follow Armendariz in their vehicle. Sanford wore the stolen police gear; defendants then tracked Armendariz and his wife, Perla Flores, and their two young daughters outside of a cousin's house. The family saw two armed men exit a black Chevrolet Tahoe and at least one other man arrive from across the street. Two of the men zip-tied Armendariz's arms and legs together, covered his head, and put him into the back of the Tahoe. Ford questioned Armendariz about where he kept his money while an unknown co-conspirator drove the Tahoe around. Eventually the Tahoe dropped off Ford at Armendariz's home. Meanwhile, Sanford drove Ms. Flores and her daughters in her car to the Flores-Armendariz home. Defendants confronted Ms. Flores, demanding to know where Armendariz kept his money. Morgan put a gun to the three-year-old daughter's head, and Ms. Flores then told them the money was under her daughter's dresser. Morgan retrieved $30,000 from under the dresser and left the home. Later that night or early the next morning, Ford and Sanford looked for Morgan and found him at a Taco Bell. They divided the money taken from Armendariz's home. A jury convicted defendants of kidnapping, conspiracy to kidnap, and possession of a firearm during a crime of violence. Each defendant brought a separate appeal, raising overlapping but not identical issues. Finding no reversible errors to any defendant, the Tenth Circuit affirmed their convictions. View "United States v. Morgan" on Justia Law

Defendant Sevgi Muhammad was indicted on 24 counts of mail fraud, two counts of making a false statement, and one count of stealing public money. All the charges arose out of Defendant’s obtaining housing assistance through the Housing Choice Voucher Program of the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). She pleaded no contest to one count of making a false statement. At the sentencing hearing, however, she moved to withdraw her plea. The district court denied the motion, and sentenced defendant to serve three years of probation and pay restitution. On appeal defendant argued her plea was not knowing and voluntary and that the district court erred when it denied her motion to withdraw the plea. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "United States v. Muhammad" on Justia Law

Defendants-appellants Eric Kamahele, Daniel Maumau, Kepa Maumau, Sitamipa Toki, and Mataika Tuai appealed their convictions arising from armed robberies and shootings in connection with the Tongan Crips Gang (TCG) in Glendale, Utah. After a jury trial, Kamahele, Kepa Maumau, and Tuai were found guilty of conspiring to commit a racketeering offense under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). Kamahele, both Maumaus, and Toki were found guilty of committing violent crimes in aid of racketeering activity (VICAR). Kamahele, Kepa Maumau, and Tuai were also found guilty of violating the Hobbs Act. And all were found guilty of violating 18 U.S.C. 924(c) (2006), for using guns during their respective crimes. All defendants argued the district court erred by: (1) admitting expert testimony about the TCG's history, structure, and activities; and (2) denying their motions for a judgment of acquittal under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29 based on the Government's failure to prove various elements of RICO and VICAR. Four defendants raised individual claims pertaining to alleged trial court errors in instructing the jury, selecting the jury, admitting certain evidence, prosecutorial misconduct, and deciding the appropriate sentences. Rejecting all of the defendants' arguments, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "United States v. Kamahele" on Justia Law

Keith Scott Pulliam was indicted on charges of being a felon in possession of a firearm and being an armed career criminal. He moved to suppress the fruits (firearms) of a search of his home. On appeal, he claimed the application for the search warrant did not demonstrate probable cause and the search by state officers was unreasonably executed. After the district judge denied his suppression motion he pled guilty under a plea agreement, which reserved his right to appeal the denial. The judge accepted the plea and sentenced Pulliam to a 75 month prison term. Exercising his reserved right, Pulliam appealed to the Tenth Circuit. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "United States v. Pulliam" on Justia Law

Defendant-appellant Gwen Bergman was arrested when the hit-man she thought she hired to kill her husband was in fact an undercover police officer. After trial, it emerged that defendant's lawyer was not a lawyer-in-fact, but a con man. Defendant applied for habeas relief on the ground that she received ineffective assistance of counsel. The district court agreed with her: the court vacated her conviction, and discharged her from supervised release (she had finished her prison term). Assuming the court's decision to vacate the conviction it won at defendant's first trial was without prejudice to a new trial with a (real) defense lawyer, the government asked the court to set a date. The district court refused, stating that its discharge order "implicitly" forbade any effort to secure a valid conviction at a second trial. The government appealed the district court's decision to the Tenth Circuit. The government's appeal raised the question of whether defendant could be exposed to a new trial and lawful conviction despite having successfully petitioned for habeas relief and served her jail sentence. Rather than contend categorically that only double jeopardy problems may preclude retrial, the government suggested that the remedy the district court selected was too attenuated from the right it found violated: defendant's Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel. "[T]he presumptively appropriate remedy for a trial with an ineffective lawyer is a new trial with an effective one. . . . the district court failed to identify any reason why that presumption is inapplicable here; and in these circumstances refusing a new trial amounts to an abuse of discretion." View "United States v. Bergman" on Justia Law

Rick Reese owned a licensed firearms store in southern New Mexico and ran it with his wife, Terri, and two sons, Ryin and Remington. In 2012, a jury convicted the Reeses for aiding and abetting straw purchases of firearms from the store. Unbeknownst to them, at the time of trial the FBI was investigating one of the government's witnesses for his alleged involvement in various criminal activities. Arguing that the government's failure to disclose that information before trial violated "Brady v. Maryland," (373 U.S. 83 (1963)), and "Giglio v. United States," (405 U.S. 150 (1972)). The district court concluded that the government had withheld favorable, material evidence from Defendants and accordingly granted their motion for a new trial. The question before the Tenth Circuit was whether the district court erred in doing so. The Tenth Circuit held that the district court erred because the investigation was not material. Therefore the Court reversed the district court's order and remanded this case for further proceedings. View "United States v. Reese, et al" on Justia Law

Pro se appellant Ronald Calhoun appealed the district court's dismissal of his habeas corpus petition. The district court held that appellant was not "in custody," as required to invoke the jurisdiction of the federal courts. Appellant argued he was in custody because he must register as a sex offender. The Tenth Circuit issued a certificate of appealability on whether appellant's ongoing registration obligations under Colorado’s Sex Offender Registration Act satisfied the custody requirement of section 2254. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. View "Calhoun v. Colorado Attorney General" on Justia Law

In 2008, the IRS levied defendant John Williamson's wife's wages to collect his back taxes dating back thirty years. The IRS sent a notice of the levy, which Defendant returned, writing across the document: "Refused for cause. Return to sender, unverified bill." He enclosed an affidavit explaining why he did not need to pay income taxes. Subsequent notices of the levy were also returned. Later that year, Defendant sent an invoice for $909,067,650.00 to two IRS agents who had worked on the matter, listing the value of real and personal property allegedly seized by the IRS, added damages for various alleged torts, and then trebled the total "for racketeering." A grand jury indicted Defendant and Mrs. Williamson on two counts: (1) "endeavor[ing] to impede the due administration of the Internal Revenue Code by filing a false and fraudulent Claim of Lien;" and (2) "fil[ing] . . . a false lien and encumbrance against the real and personal property [of the IRS agents] on account of the performance of [their] official duties." Mrs. Williamson pled guilty to the second count in return for dismissal of the first count against her. Defendant, however, proceeded to trial. His defense was essentially that he genuinely believed his lien was proper. A forensic psychologist testified that Defendant suffered from a delusional disorder that prevented him from abandoning his beliefs even when confronted with overwhelming evidence that he was wrong. Defendant requested instructions that would support his "genuine belief" defense to both charges, but the court rejected them and the jury returned verdicts of guilty on the two charges. Defendant was sentenced to four months in prison and three years of supervised release. Defendant appealed his conviction, claiming the district court erred by not giving the requested jury instructions. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "United States v. Williamson" on Justia Law

A grand jury returned a three-count indictment charging Safiyyah Tahir Battles with: (1) making a false statement to a financial institution (Count I); (2) committing wire fraud (Count II); and (3) laundering money (Count III). Battles exercised her right to a jury trial, and the jury returned a verdict of guilty on Counts II and III. The jury failed to reach a verdict on Count I. As a result, the district court declared a mistrial on Count I and subsequently granted the government's unopposed motion to dismiss that count without prejudice. Battles was sentenced to thirty months in prison, followed by two years of supervised release. The district court also ordered her to make restitution to the victim of her crimes. Battles appealed her convictions and sentence on numerous grounds. Upon careful consideration of the facts of this case and the district court record, the Tenth Circuit upheld the district court's judgment and affirmed Battles's convictions and sentence. The Court dismissed the portion of Battles's appeal pertaining to her Brady claim for lack of jurisdiction. View "United States v. Battles" on Justia Law