Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The district court granted petitioner, convicted of murder and sentenced to death, a certificate of appealability (COA), on his Brady claims, and this court expanded the COA to include his ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim - that counsel failed to present expert testimony relating to petitioner's background and mental condition. The court then expanded the COA a second time after the Supreme Court decided Trevino v. Thaler, which recognized certain circumstances in which a federal court may excuse a habeas petitioner's failure to properly raise his claims in state court. After reviewing the record and entertaining the parties' arguments in open court, the court reversed the district court's grant of habeas corpus relief setting aside petitioner's death sentence based on the State psychologist's testimony, affirmed the district court's denial of his Brady claims and ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim; and held that Trevino does not enable him to raise new claims that he failed to litigate in state court. View "Hittson v. GDCP Warden" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, two counts of substantive wire fraud, six counts of securities fraud, and two counts of making false statements to agents of the SEC and FBI. At issue was whether the court had jurisdiction to hear appeals from judgments sentencing defendant to a term of imprisonment and indicating that restitution will later be ordered but deferring determination of the specific amount. The court held that, regardless of whether a final judgment reflecting the amount of restitution has been entered, a judgment imposing a term of imprisonment is "freighted with sufficiently substantial indicia of finality to support an appeal." The court concluded that it had jurisdiction in this case because the judgment at issue in this appeal sentenced defendant to 163 months in prison. The court concluded, however, that defendant's issues raised on appeal lacked merit. Accordingly, the court affirmed defendant's sentence and conviction. View "United States v. Muzio" on Justia Law

Petitioner pleaded guilty to charges related to his conspiracy with others to establish an online pharmacy in violation of federal law. At issue on appeal was whether petitioner could collaterally attack the voluntariness of his guilty plea in a motion to vacate his sentence, 28 U.S.C. 2255, after he already presented that issue as an objection to his appointed counsel's motion to withdraw in his direct appeal. The court concluded that the prisoner was procedurally barred from relitigating the voluntariness of his plea and affirmed the denial of petitioner's motion to vacate his sentence. View "Stoufflet v. United States" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence after pleading guilty to conspiring to use unauthorized access devices. The court vacated the district court's sentence and remanded for resentencing without a two-level increase for trafficking in unauthorized devices under U.S.S.G. 2B1.1(b)(11)(B). The court expressed no opinion about "production" and remanded with directions that the district court rule on the "production" issue and give reasons why and then resentence defendant. View "United States v. Charles" on Justia Law

Petitioner, sentenced to death for committing three murders during the course of a burglary, appealed the district court's denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The court concluded that it could not grant federal habeas relief on petitioner's Giglio v. United States and Brady v. Maryland claims where petitioner's false scenario had a substantial and injurious effect or influence over the jury's verdict. Assuming that the detectives' motivation for providing a witness visits with his family and a conjugal visit with his wife was not expressly communicated to the defense, the Florida Supreme Court's decision that the information was not material, and that a Giglio and Brady violation had not occurred, did not amount to an adjudication that was contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, Supreme Court precedent. The state did not violate Brady when it failed to disclose two letters from a jail inmate. Finally, the State did not violate Brady when it failed to disclose the letters pertaining to the potential impeachment of another witness. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Rodriguez v. Secretary, FL DOC" on Justia Law

Petitioner, sentenced to death, appealed the denial of his pro se "Motion for Appointment of Substitute Collateral Counsel" under 18 U.S.C. 3599, to aid him in preparing and filing a second or successive 28 U.S.C. 2254 federal habeas petition based on Martinez v. Ryan. The court concluded that it would be futile to appoint counsel to present a Martinez-based claim. Petitioner's claims were barred and futile for reasons unrelated to the merits of any substantive ineffective-trial-counsel claim. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Lambrix v. Secretary, FL Dept. of Corrections" on Justia Law

Defendant, a former fugitive expedited back to the United States from Ecuador, appealed his sentence for importing five or more kilograms of cocaine and failing to appear for trial. The court concluded that the Alleyne v. United States error that occurred in this case was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; even if defendant had shown an actual conflict of interest, he failed to demonstrate any adverse effect from the fact that he was represented by a federal defender in 2012; although defendant did not invite the district court to impose a 22-month sentence on the failure to appear count, he unequivocally invited the district court to sentence him to an additional term of imprisonment on that count; and the court declined to remand to the district court for purposes of reconstructing the record of the final two days of the 1990 trial. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Malone" on Justia Law

Petitioner appealed the district court's denial of his pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2254. The court concluded that the petition was not successive where resentencing by the state judge resulted in a new judgment, making this the first challenge to that new judgment. On the merits, the court concluded that the state judge had a reasonable basis to deny petitioner's claim that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate, depose, and adequately impeach a witness; the state judge did not apply Strickland v. Washington unreasonably in rejecting petitioner's claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to question or remove a juror that was "nodding" off but not asleep; statements to the jury by the prosecutor during closing argument were not improper; and petitioner failed to show that the state judge lacked a reasonable basis to deny his cumulative-error claim. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Insignares v. Secretary, FL Dept. of Corrections" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence after pleading guilty to illegal reentry into the United States by an aggravated felon. The court concluded that the district court correctly determined that a 16-level-enhancement applied to defendant's prior conviction for enticement of a minor; the fact that defendant's conviction was based on an Alford plea was immaterial because the collateral consequences of an Alford plea were no different than those of an ordinary guilty plea; and defendant's sentence was substantively reasonable. View "United States v. Ramirez-Gonzalez" on Justia Law

Defendants Lee, Ryan, and Dylan, appealed their sentences of 428 months after pleading guilty to participating in armed bank robbery. The court vacated the sentences of Lee and Dylan and remanded for resentencing where the district court improperly applied a six-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. 3A1.2(c) for assaulting a police officer during immediate flight from an offense. The court concluded that Ryan affirmatively disavowed any challenge to the procedural reasonableness of his sentence in his appeal and waived his right to challenge the application of the enhancement and, therefore, the court affirmed Ryan's sentence. View "United States v. Dougherty" on Justia Law