Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff filed an application seeking an order authorizing the district court to consider a second or successive motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his federal sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255(h) and 2244(b)(3)(A). Petitioner argued that the Supreme Court's decision in Miller v. Alabama established that imposing a life sentence without possibility of parole under the circumstances described was unconstitutional, and because it was decided in June 2012, it announced a new, previously unavailable rule of constitutional law that was retroactive to cases on collateral review. The court held, however, that Miller was not retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review and, therefore, the court denied the motion. View "In re: Michael Morgan" on Justia Law

Petitioner appealed the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. 2241 petition for habeas corpus, claiming that his 293-month sentence for a violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1) and the Armed Career Criminal Act of 1984 (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e), was improper because he did not have the three violent felony predicates required to apply the ACCA enhancement. At issue was whether the savings clause of 28 U.S.C. 2255(e) allowed the district court to entertain petitioner's section 2241 petition and, if it did, whether petitioner's 1989 and 1990 burglary convictions were proper ACCA predicates. In these circumstances, petitioner's direct appeal and first collateral attack were not inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention, and the savings clause did not apply. The court concluded that the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to entertain petitioner's section 2241 petition and, therefore, affirmed the judgment. View "Williams v. Warden, et al" on Justia Law

When Dustin Myers and Kelley Bowman ended their engagement, Dustin attempted to retrieve the diamond ring and other personal property. That attempt prompted allegations that Dustin had stolen Kelley's dog, followed by a police chase on rural roadways, and a brief arrest of Dustin and his father, Rodney Myers. The Myers subsequently field a complaint against Murry Bowman, Kelly's father and the magistrate judge of Jefferson County; Wiley Clark Evans, a deputy sheriff who arrested the Myers; and Charles Hutchins, Evans's supervisor. The complaint alleged that defendants conspired to violate and violated the Myers' rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, 42 U.S.C. 1983. After reviewing the videotape of the police chase and other evidence, the court agreed with the district court that the Myers' effort to make a federal case out of these events failed: Murry and Evans did not subject the Myers to excessive force; Evans had probable cause to arrest the Myers; Murry did not act under color of law; and the Myers failed to present any evidence that Murry, Evans, and Hutchins conspired to commit a false arrest. Accordingly, the court affirmed the grant of summary judgment against the Myers' complaint. View "Myers, et al v. Bowman, et al" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of conspiring to possess with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of cocaine base and was sentenced following his conviction. Defendant was resentenced after the court vacated his original sentence upon finding that the drug amount attributed to him for sentencing purposes was too speculative and remanded to the district court for resentencing. The district court then imposed a sentence of 120 months and defendant appealed. The court agreed with defendant and the government that the Fair Sentencing Act (FSA), Pub. L. No. 111-220, 124 Stat. 2372, applied to defendants whose offenses occurred prior to August 3, 2010, the date on which the FSA took effect, but who were resentenced after August 3, 2010. The court held that there was no meaningful difference between an initial sentence and a resentencing post-Act, and that the FSA applied in both cases. Accordingly, the court vacated defendant's sentence and remanded to the district court for resentencing. View "United States v. Hinds" on Justia Law

Appellant, convicted of kidnapping and murder and sentenced to death, moved for a stay of execution and expedited consideration of his appeal of the dismissal of his complaint for failure to state a claim. Appellant had filed a complaint to challenge the method of execution in Florida. The court denied appellant's motion for a stay of execution because he could not establish a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of his complaint where appellant's claims were barred by res judicata; appellant's claims about the new drugs in the three-drug protocol were barred by the statute of limitations, and, even if they were not, appellant had not stated plausible claims for relief under the Eighth Amendment; and appellant received due process in the clemency proceedings provided by the Governor. The court also denied appellant's motion for a stay of execution. View "Mann v. Palmer, et al" on Justia Law

Petitioner appealed the district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. 2254 federal habeas corpus petition as untimely. Because petitioner failed to demonstrate that he exercised reasonable diligence in pursuing his federal remedies, he was not entitled to equitable tolling of the one-year statute of limitations. Consequently, the court need not address petitioner's argument pertaining to whether his attorneys' conduct constituted an "extraordinary circumstance." Accordingly, the court affirmed the dismissal of petitioner's federal habeas petition as untimely. View "Melson v. Commissioner" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to possessing a firearm while being a convicted felon and subsequently appealed his 420-month sentence. Defendant's sentence resulted not only from his criminal history, which included two different attempted murder convictions, but also from the district court's finding that he subsequently murdered his wife while absconding from his state parole supervision. The court held that the district court committed no constitutional error in sentencing defendant as an armed career criminal under 18 U.S.C. 924(e)(1) and the district court did not abuse its discretion in weighing the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors and imposing an above-guideline sentence. Accordingly, the court affirmed the sentence. View "United States v. Overstreet" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a Florida death row prisoner, appealed from the district court's denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus, brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner's request for a competency hearing, expert funds related to the issue of his competency, and stay pending a determination of his competency to proceed in his federal habeas corpus proceedings. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Connor v. Florida DOC, et al" on Justia Law

Defendants Jose and Lisandra Cruz appealed their sentences. The court held that the district court did not err in applying a two-level increase under U.S.S.G. 2B1.1(b)(10) for the use of device-making equipment where the enhancement was warranted based on Jose's possession of device-making equipment and where Jose did not dispute this factual finding. Further, based on Lisandra's knowledge of the details of the charged offenses, and her own actions, the district court did not err in finding that she could be held responsible for her co-conspirators' use of a credit card skimmer. The court also held that the district court did no err in applying a two-level abuse-of-trust enhancement where Lisandra's conduct fell within the conduct addressed by application note 2 of U.S.S.G. 3B1.3. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's sentences. View "United States v. Cruz" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to illegally reentering the United States after having been removed to Mexico, in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1326. At issue was whether defendant's prior conviction of simple vehicle flight as defined in Fla. Stat. 316.1935(2) was an "aggravated felony" under U.S.S.G. 2L1.2(b)(1)(C). The court held that any crime that is an Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e), violent felony is also a U.S.S.G. 2L1.2(b)(1)(C) aggravated felony; the Florida crime of simple vehicle flight is an ACCA violent felony; therefore, that crime is also a section 2L1.2(b)(1)(C) aggravated felony. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's sentence. View "United States v. Coronado-Cura" on Justia Law