Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Petitioner, convicted of capital murder, appealed the district court's denial of habeas relief. The court denied petitioner's request for a certificate of appealability on his claims of actual innocence; ineffective assistance of trial counsel; ineffective assistance of appellate counsel; ineffective assistance of habeas counsel; appellate counsel's conflict of interest; Brady violations; and violations of his Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The court held that reasonable jurists could not debate the district court's conclusion. View "Reed v. Stephens" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, challenging the constitutionality of Texas Government Code 501.063, which provides that inmates must pay a $100 annual health are service fee when they receive medical treatment in the prison system. After affirming the dismissal of Governor Perry because he was not a proper defendant, the court turned to the merits of the case. The court concluded that the complaint did not state sufficient facts to support an Eighth Amendment claim under the theory that defendant was denied medical care or that the fee required him to decide between obtaining medical care or basic necessities; plaintiff's due process claims failed where the notice provided was constitutionally adequate and the discrepancy between the posted notice and the statute did not render the notice inadequate; plaintiff failed to show that the taking of funds from his inmate trust fund account to pay for his medical care was unreasonable in light of the goal of controlling the prison budget and, therefore, plaintiff's claims under the Fourth Amendment failed; and plaintiff waived his ex post facto claim, as well as his other miscellaneous claims. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of defendant's motion to dismiss. View "Morris v. Livingston" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the district court's application of the vulnerable-victim enhancement to his sentence after pleading guilty to receipt, distribution, and possession of material involving the sexual exploitation of children. The court doubted that the district court correctly applied the vulnerable-victim enhancement here, but any error was harmless where it was apparent from the record that the district court would have imposed the same sentence had the Guidelines range been properly calculated and the Government had shown that the improperly calculated Guidelines did not influence the district court. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's sentence. View "United States v. Ramos" on Justia Law

The district court granted habeas relief in favor of petitioner, finding that he is mentally retarded and therefore ineligible for execution based on Atkins v. Virginia. The state appealed the district court's imposition of a permanent injunction enjoining the State from executing petitioner. The district court concluded that the state court was required to provide petitioner with the funds necessary to develop his claims. The court concluded that the district court erred in its determination that the state court decision was not entitled to deference under 28 U.S.C. 2254(d)(1) where there was no Supreme Court decision that has held that prisoners asserting Atkins claims were entitled to expert funds to make out a prima facie case. Similarly, the state court's judgment did not violate 28 U.S.C. 2254(d)(2) where petitioner did not contend that he presented a prima facie showing of mental retardation before the state court and, therefore, waived his claim. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's grant of habeas relief. View "Brumfield v. Cain, Warden" on Justia Law

Vantage filed suit against defendant in Texas state court on various state law claims arising from defendant's role as a director of Vantage. Defendant moved to federal court and Vantage appealed the district court's denial of its motion to remand to state court. The court reversed and remanded with instructions that the district court remand to the state court because Vantage is a corporation with foreign citizenship and defendant is a foreign citizen. As in Chick Kam Choo v. Exxon Corp., there are aliens on both sides of the litigation, complete diversity is lacking, and there can be no diversity jurisdiction. View "Vantage Drilling Co. v. Su" on Justia Law

Defendants appealed their sentences and convictions stemming from their involvement in a health care fraud scheme. The court concluded that, although it would have been preferable for the district court to provide a cautionary instruction to the jury on the permissible purpose of the Medicare and Medicaid violations at issue, the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to give the requested limiting instruction; the evidence was sufficient to support Defendant Clardy's convictions; the district court did not abuse its discretion in permitting the Government to cross examine Clardy on the blank prescription forms she signed, the cash-only policy at two pain management clinics, and the letter from the anonymous party; and the district court did not err in its intended loss calculation. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Imo, et al." on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to a superseding information charging him with removing property to prevent seizure and aiding and abetting. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's restitution order. The court concluded, after reviewing the whole of the record, that defendant's valid appeal waiver did in fact bar his right to appeal the restitution order. The court also concluded that defendant waived his Eighth Amendment claims because the appeal waiver in defendant's signed, written plea agreement waived his right to appeal his sentence with only three specific exceptions. Accordingly, the court dismissed the appeal. View "United States v. Keele" on Justia Law

Defendant, convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm, appealed the district court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence. The court vacated the conviction and sentence because the district court expressly declined to make factual findings that could have had a determinative impact on the outcome of the suppression hearing. The court remanded for further findings to ascertain, inter alia, whether the police officer asked defendant for consent to search his car. View "United States v. Guzman" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence and convictions for crimes related to his involvement in the disposing of untreated wastewater. The court rejected defendant's evidentiary claims and concluded that the cumulative effect of any alleged error was harmless. Further, the court held that there was no error by the district court in applying a four-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2Q1.3(b)(4) to defendant whose conduct the enhancement plainly encompassed; the court lacked jurisdiction to review the denial of a two-level downward departure where the district court clearly considered the departure and chose not to apply it in light of the quantity of the discharges involved; the district court did not err in applying a six-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2Q.3(b)(1)(A) for ongoing, repetitive, continuous discharge of a pollutant; and the court rejected defendant's remaining arguments. Accordingly, the court affirmed the convictions and sentence. View "United States v. Tuma" on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of murder and sentenced to death, was denied federal habeas relief and seeks a certificate of appealability (COA) in order to pursue his ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim. Petitioner argued that trial counsel failed to submit appropriate death penalty questions to the potential jurors during jury selection; failed to call an investigator as a witness and failed to introduce hospital records at the guilt/innocence phase; and failed to present mitigating evidence at the punishment phase. The court rejected these arguments and denied the request for a COA, concluding that reasonable jurists would not debate the district court's decision to deny habeas relief on petitioner's Strickland v. Washington claims. View "Garza v. Thaler" on Justia Law