Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Petitioner, convicted of malice murder and sentenced to death, appealed the district court's denial of her 28 U.S.C. 2254 federal habeas petition. Petitioner convinced her on-again, off-again lover to kill her on-again, off-again husband. The court concluded that the district court correctly denied federal habeas relief on petitioner's ineffective assistance of counsel claim where the state court reasonably found that she had failed to carry her burden of demonstrating that she was prejudiced by counsel's advice during the plea process; correctly denied petitioner's Brady v. Maryland claim where the state habeas court reasonably found that further impeachment of petitioner's lover based on the undisclosed statements contained in the prosecution team's notes would not have created a reasonable probability of a different result in either phase of the trial; and correctly rejected petitioner's penalty phase claim of ineffective assistance of counsel where the state habeas court's finding that trial counsel conducted a constitutionally adequate mitigation investigation did not involve an unreasonable application of Strickland v. Washington or depend on an unreasonable finding of fact. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Gissendaner v. Seaboldt" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the calculation of his sentence after pleading guilty to unlawful entry into the United States by an aggravated felon. The court concluded that the district court did not err in applying an 8-level sentencing enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2L1.2(b)(1)(C) where defendant pled guilty to an aggravated felony because he pled guilty to a state crime of violence and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of at least one year; the district court did not abuse his discretion by declining to accord defendant a departure or variance based on cultural assimilation; and defendant's reporting requirement from Mexico comported with the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors, particularly since this was his second deportation from the United States. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Garza-Mendez" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for assaulting a corrections officer with a deadly or dangerous weapon under 18 U.S.C. 111. The jury explicitly found that defendant committed a forcible assault in section 111(a) and that he used a deadly or dangerous weapon during that assault. This was all that section 111(b) required to convict defendant of the separate crime established in section 111(b) and to raise defendant's statutory maximum penalty to twenty years' imprisonment. Therefore, the court affirmed the conviction and sentence, concluding that the district court sentenced defendant within the applicable statutory maximum penalty of twenty years' imprisonment. View "United States v. Siler" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction of two counts of murder in aid of racketeering. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment where the district court found certain testimony, that there was no oral immunity deal, to be more credible than defendant's testimony; the district court did not clearly err in sustaining the government's Batson challenge to defendant's motion to strike a potential juror; and the district court properly denied defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal because the government produced sufficient evidence to support the jury's reasonable finding that defendant murdered the victims for the purpose of maintaining or increasing his position in a local white supremacist group. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Robertson" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Antigua, petitioned for review of the BIA's affirmance of an IJ's determination that petitioner was not eligible for cancellation of removal because he committed an aggravated felony. The court concluded that a conviction under Fla. Stat. 893.13(1)(a)(2) for the possession of cannabis with the intent to sell or deliver was not, as a matter of law, a drug trafficking aggravated felony. Petitioner and others convicted under this statute could still be able to meet their burden to demonstrate eligibility for cancellation of removal, and should be given a chance to shoulder that burden. Accordingly, the court granted the petition, vacating and remanding for further proceedings. View "Donawa v. U.S. Attorney General" on Justia Law

Petitioner was convicted of malice murder and sentenced to life in prison. On appeal, petitioner challenged the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. 2254 habeas petition. Petitioner argued that the state trial court's instructions to the jury on venue, an essential element of the crime charged, improperly shifted the burden of proof from the state to him. The court concluded that the Georgia Supreme Court's decision was not contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law where the court found that any Sandstrom v. Montana error was harmless. At trial, the prosecution had presented substantial evidence to support its theory that the victim was killed in Troup County, Georgia. Further, the court concluded that the 25-year delay in resolving petitioner's motion for a new trial did not violate his constitutional rights where the Supreme Court has never held that there was a constitutional right to a speedy direct appeal in a state criminal case. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Owens v. McLaughlin" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for two counts of robbery and one count of brandishing a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence. The court concluded that even if the district court erred in admitting an eyewitness's identification testimony, any such error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant's guilt. Further, the district court did not err by using defendant's Alabama youthful offender adjudication to classify him as a career offender under U.S.S.G. 4B1.1. Accordingly, the court affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence. View "United States v. Elliot" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his convictions and sentence for conspiracy to commit wire fraud and wire fraud. The court concluded that there was sufficient evidence for a reasonable trier of fact to find defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The court concluded, however, that the record did not support a finding that defendant's offense involved more than 50 victims. Accordingly, the court vacated defendant's sentence and remanded to the district court for resentencing with a 2-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2B1.1(b)(2)(A) rather than a 4-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2B1.1(b)(2)(B). View "United States v. Rodriguez" on Justia Law

Petitioner filed a 28 U.S.C. 2254 petition for a writ of habeas corpus that challenged his convictions and death sentence on multiple grounds. At issue on appeal was whether trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance to petitioner in the penalty phase of his capital murder trial in allegedly failing to investigate and present mitigation evidence. The court affirmed the district court's denial of petitioner's section 2254 petition after considering the state court record, the evidentiary record in the district court, and the parties' submissions. View "Puiatti v. Secretary, FL Dept. of Corrections" on Justia Law

Defendant, convicted of interference with commerce by violence (Count 1) and using and carrying a firearm during and in retaliation of a crime of violence (Count 2), appealed his sentence of 209 months' imprisonment. The court concluded that there was no basis for it to conclude that an alleged Alleyne v. United States error seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings as to Count 2; the district court did not clearly err in imposing a two-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. 3C1.1 for obstruction of justice; and the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing an above-guidelines sentence as to Count 1. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. McKinley" on Justia Law