Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

A grand jury indicted defendants Michael Calhoun, Tommy Davis, and William Tucker on 60 counts of wire fraud, mail fraud, and conspiracy to commit wire and mail fraud. The indictment was based on Calhoun's grand jury testimony in which he incriminated himself, Davis, and Tucker. Calhoun testified upon the advice of his counsel at the time, Tom Mills, who was paid by Texas Capital Bank (the alleged victim of the fraud). After Calhoun secured new counsel, defendants moved to quash the indictment and suppress Calhoun's grand jury testimony, arguing the indictment was obtained in violation of the Fifth Amendment Indictment Clause, the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, and Calhoun's Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel. The district court denied the motion. In consolidated, pretrial interlocutory appeals, the defendants challenged the denial of their motion to quash, arguing that the Tenth Circuit should exercise its jurisdiction under the "collateral order" exception to the final judgment rule, ("Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp.," (337 U.S. 541, 546-47 (1949)). However, the Tenth Circuit concluded that the collateral order doctrine did not apply, and dismissed these appeals for lack of jurisdiction. View "United States v. Tucker" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Thomas Evans was a property manager and organizer of real estate investment funds, and was owner and president of Evans Real Estate Group, LLC. V R. 212. At first, Evans' business conduct was legitimate (if highly risky), but by April 2005, Evans experienced cash flow problems and was unable to make the high interest payments to investors. He pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud, and was sentenced to 168 months’ imprisonment and five years’ supervised release. He appealed the sentence. Because the district court erred in calculating loss and failing to award an offense level reduction for acceptance of responsibility, the Tenth Circuit remanded the case back to the district court to vacate the sentence and resentence. View "United States v. Evans" on Justia Law

Denver police arrested Marvin Booker on a warrant for failure to appear at a hearing regarding a drug charge. During booking, Booker died while in custody after officers restrained him in response to alleged insubordination. Several officers pinned Booker face-down to the ground, one placed him in a chokehold, and another tased him. The officers sought medical help for Booker, but he could not be revived. Booker’s estate sued Deputies Faun Gomez, James Grimes, Kyle Sharp, Kenneth Robinette, and Sergeant Carrie Rodriguez, alleging they used excessive force and failed to provide Booker with immediate medical care. Defendants moved for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds. The district court denied their motion because disputed facts precluded summary judgment. The Defendants appealed, but finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "Estate of Marvin L. Booker, et al v. Gomez, et al" on Justia Law

Defendant Scott Fonseca was convicted of possessing stolen firearms and was sentenced to seventy months' imprisonment. On appeal, defendant argued: (1) the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence of the stolen firearms because they were found as the result of a detention that exceeded the permissible scope of a Terry stop; and (2) the district court erred in allowing the government's introduction of certain testimony (which was contrary to the court's grant of defendant's earlier motion in limine, but without a concurrent objection by defendant) that he had previously sold several guns that were stolen at the same time as the eight firearms found as a result of the Terry stop. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence. View "United States v. Fonseca" on Justia Law

Oklahoma state prisoner appellant Antonio Milton was serving a life sentence without parole for drug-trafficking-related convictions. After exhausting his state court remedies, Milton filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus alleging (in relevant part) his counsel on direct appeal was ineffective for failing to assert a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, specifically that Milton’s trial counsel failed to inform Milton of a favorable pretrial plea offer. The district court denied Milton’s petition, but the Tenth Circuit granted Milton a certificate of appealability to challenge the district court’s ruling on the ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim. Upon further review, the Tenth Circuit concluded that the Oklahoma state courts’ resolution of Milton’s ineffective assistance claim could not survive scrutiny under 28 U.S.C. 2254(d)(1), and that unresolved issues of fact prevented the Court from completing its own de novo review of the claim. Consequently, the Court reversed and remanded the case to the district court with directions to conduct an evidentiary hearing on Milton’s ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim. View "Milton v. Miller" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Gloria Porter was convicted of 105 counts of wire fraud, one count of mail fraud, and one count of identity theft. She appealed her convictions, arguing that the district court incorrectly instructed the jury with respect to aggravated identity theft and that the evidence was insufficient to support her convictions for wire fraud and mail fraud. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed defendant's convictions. View "United States v. Porter" on Justia Law

Defendant Jermaine Mosley entered a conditional guilty plea to one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm. He appealed the district court's denial of his motion to suppress the gun that was the basis of this offense. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. View "United States v. Mosley" on Justia Law

Defendant Leslie Susan Harrison was convicted by a jury of conspiring to manufacture and distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine, for which she was sentenced to 360 months in prison. On appeal she challenged the sentence on five grounds. : Upon review, the Tenth Circuit vacated the sentence and remanded for further proceedings, agreeing with defendant's reasoning on her first argument: when she challenged the drug-quantity calculation in the PSR, the district court did not require the government to put on evidence supporting the calculation, stating that the PSR was based on trial testimony. This statement was inaccurate, and the error was not harmless because the trial evidence would not compel a finding of at least 1.5 kilograms of methamphetamine. The other issues could have been mooted on remand, and therefore the Court did not address them. View "United States v. Harrison" on Justia Law

Defendant Dennis Augustine was convicted on two counts of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine. Before trial, he filed two separate motions to suppress evidence: (1) one to quash a warrant to search Defendant’s residence and to suppress evidence found in that search which led directly to his arrest; and (2) one to suppress Defendant’s statements to law enforcement officials after his arrest. The district denied both motions. After the subsequent trial, the jury found Defendant guilty on both counts of conspiracy. View "United States v. Augustine" on Justia Law

Pro se defendant-appellant Charles Baldwin was convicted for violating two federal regulations: failing to comply with directions of federal police officers, and for "loitering, exhibiting disorderly conduct or exhibiting other conduct" on federal property that "imped[ed] or distrup[ed] the performance of official duties by" government employees. Defendant worked as an attorney for the Department of the Interior. The charges arose when, leaving for work, defendant sped through the parking lot, and swerved to miss hitting a bicyclist. A Federal Protective Service officer wanted to issue defendant a warning, but before he could finish, defendant drove off, ignoring the officer's commands to stop. The officer followed defendant off federal grounds, stopped defendant again, and asked for license, registration and proof of insurance. Defendant refused to comply, had to be forced from his vehicle, and was eventually restrained with handcuffs. Among other things, defendant argued that violating the two federal regulations wasn't a crime; they were administrative rules or policies that carried no penalty. And that even if they were crimes, defendant contended he didn't act with the sufficient mens rea to be held criminally culpable. The Tenth Circuit reviewed the circumstances of this case. And while the regulations "certainly do delineate policy, . . .that isn't all they do. Another section of the same regulatory 'subpart' expressly provides that the very sections Mr. Baldwin violated can be enforced through criminal sanctions." Furthermore, the Court found that "a law's silence about mens rea doesn't necessarily mean violating it isn't a crime." The Court affirmed defendant's convictions. View "United States v. Baldwin" on Justia Law