Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff filed suit against Corpus Christi Police Department officers under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging claims of unlawful arrest and excessive force, as well as state-law assault and battery claims. On appeal, the officers challenged the district court's denial of their motion for summary judgment. The court concluded that the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity and summary judgment on plaintiff's unlawful arrest claim where the officers' entry into plaintiff's apartment to effectuate his arrest violated the Fourth Amendment, in light of the lack of exigent circumstances and where, at the time of the officers' conduct, the Supreme Court and this court had made it abundantly clear that either a warrant or probable cause and exigent circumstances was required to arrest an individual in his home. The court concluded, however, that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity and summary judgment on plaintiff's excessive-force claim. The court rejected the officers' contention that section 105.006(e-1) of the Texas Family Code entitled them to immunity and the court lacked jurisdiction to consider the officers' interlocutory appeal of the district court's denial of their motion for summary judgment on these claims. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Hogan v. City of Corpus Christi, TX, et al." on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of murder, appealed the district court's dismissal of his application for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2254. The court concluded that, even had the state court unreasonably concluded that there was no Confrontation Clause violation, habeas relief could not be granted because defendant failed to make a showing of prejudice where the admission of the videotape at issue did not have a substantial or injurious effect on the outcome of the jury's verdict. Further, defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel during his intermediate appeal because counsel failed to make a Confrontation Clause argument related to the admission of the videotape also failed. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Dorsey v. Thaler" on Justia Law

A jury found defendant guilty of unlawful possession of a firearm as a convicted felon. Defendant timely appealed. The court reversed and remanded, concluding that the district court abused its discretion in admitting certain testimony that attempted to describe defendant's alleged gang membership and connect it with illegal firearms and the error was not harmless. View "United States v. Hamilton" on Justia Law

Plaintiff sued Brink, and others, claiming that he was raped while in jail when he was nineteen years old and that the rape occurred as a result of ineffective locks on cell doors. Brink argued on interlocutory appeal that the district court erred in concluding that the statute of limitations began running against plaintiff at the moment the torts occurred. The court concluded that the Mississippi Code clearly distinguished between the concepts of emancipation and the disability of infancy, as well as the implications of each, and Mississippi cases did not illustrate an intent to deviate from this clear distinction. Therefore, the court held that the statute of limitations did not begin to run against plaintiff until he reached the age of majority. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Baker v. RR Brink Locking Systems, Inc." on Justia Law

Defendant, a refugee from Vietnam who spoke no English, appealed the denial of his 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion where he alleged ineffective assistance of counsel based on his counsel's failure to consult with him about filing a direct appeal of his sentence. After his wife was diagnosed with a brain tumor, defendant, who had no criminal record, was convicted of growing over seven hundred marijuana plants in order to raise money to pay for his wife's medical treatment. When sentenced, defendant was visibly upset at receiving a prison sentence instead of probation, saying that a prison sentence would kill his wife, who relied on his care; and, while his wife cried nearby, defendant spoke with counsel regarding his concern about getting 60 months and desire to do something to get less time. The court concluded that defendant reasonably expressed an interest in an appeal immediately after he was sentenced and this triggered counsel's duty to consult. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Pham" on Justia Law

Petitioner appealed the district court's dismissal of his habeas petition as untimely under the one-year statute of limitations under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), 28 U.S.C. 2244(d)(1). The court denied petitioner's request for equitable tolling where no extraordinary circumstances stood in the way of him filing a timely petition and where the La. Supreme Court did not adjudicate petitioner's motion on its merits and his petition would not have been timely under AEDPA. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Sutton v. Cain" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of possession with intent to distribute more than 250 grams of cocaine base. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized in connection with a traffic stop. The court vacated the conviction and sentence, concluding that defendant limited his consent to a search of his luggage only and the officer's prolonged, more extensive search of defendant's entire vehicle violated his Fourth Amendment right. Therefore, the drugs found during the search of the vehicle and the incriminating statements made shortly thereafter must be suppressed as fruits of the unlawful search. View "United States v. Cotton" on Justia Law

Defendants appealed their convictions and sentences stemming from their participation in a wide-ranging mortgage fraud scheme. The court concluded that the district court plainly erred in including the amount of loss from the Appalachian transaction in Defendant Andrews' mandatory restitution order. Accordingly, the court affirmed Andrews' conviction but vacated the forfeiture and restitution component of his sentence. On remand, the district court should limit Andrews' restitution order to the amount of loss suffered as a result of the Creek Bend transaction, excluding any proceeds associated with the Appalachian transaction. The court affirmed the convictions and sentences as to the remaining defendants. View "United States v. Mason" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence stemming from his conviction of charges related to his involvement in a street gang that trafficked large amounts of cocaine powder and base. Defendant claimed that the Government agreed in an e-mail exchange that it would not seek a leader/organizer enhancement under U.S.S.G. 3B1.1(a) and that the Government breached the plea agreement by supporting the enhancement recommendation in the presentence report. The court held that the Government did not breach the plea agreement; defendant's claim that the e-mail exchange at issue was part of the plea agreement because it reasonably induced him to plead guilty was unavailing; defendant did not identify, nor has the court discovered, any case in which a court looked beyond a cover letter attached to a plea agreement; and defendant's reliance on the e-mail exchange would be unreasonable in light of the plea agreement's merger clause stating that the written plea agreement constituted the complete agreement among the parties involved. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment. View "United States v. Long" on Justia Law

Defendants appealed their convictions and sentences stemming from their involvement with the Barrio Aztecas, a gang that operated inside prison and outside prison, where it ran a drug distribution network. The court held that there was sufficient evidence to convict Defendants Nieto and Hernandez on the three counts at issue (racketeering, conspiracy to racketeer, and conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute controlled substances) and venue was proper; the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendants' motions for a mistrial; and the district court did not err in sentencing Defendant Nieto. Accordingly,the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Nieto, et al." on Justia Law