Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Petitioner appealed the denial of his habeas petition, arguing that his trial attorney interfered with his federal constitutional right to testify at his state trial for armed robbery and felon in possession of a firearm. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of petitioner's 28 U.S.C. 2254 petition as unexhausted because he failed to disclaim that argument during state habeas proceedings. View "Johnson v. Cain" on Justia Law

While serving time in the county jail, plaintiff labored in a county work program under the sheriff's supervision. At issue was whether plaintiff was covered under the Mississippi Workers' Compensation Act (MWCA), Mississippi Code 47-5-417, -567, and thus was entitled to compensation benefits for injuries sustained while he was on work detail. The county and the medical corporation that treated plaintiff sought reimbursement of medical expenses from the Mississippi Public Entities Workers' Compensation Trust (MPE), the provider of workers' compensation insurance from the county. The court concluded as a matter of law that the county had no enforceable contract to hire plaintiff, a prerequisite of coverage, and therefore, the court affirmed the district court's summary judgment in favor of MPE. View "Vuncannon, et al v. United States" on Justia Law

Defendant challenged one of two counts of his drug-trafficking conviction for insufficiency of evidence and the other for an erroneously submitted jury instruction. The court clarified that because the Supreme Court had stated and repeatedly reaffirmed the constitutional test for sufficiency of the evidence to uphold a conviction, Jackson v. Virginia, the statements inconsistent with Jackson that have appeared in some Fifth Circuit cases must be disavowed. Based on the Jackson standard, the court found that the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant of knowing, voluntary participation in a conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana. The court concluded that the district court neither erred nor abused its discretion in giving the aiding and abetting jury instruction. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Vargas-Ocampo" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to illegal reentry and on appeal, he asserted that the imposition of a three-year term of supervised release (SR) was procedurally and substantively unreasonable. Even assuming the district court did not previously conduct the factual consideration described in U.S.S.G. 5D1.1, defendant's criminal record supported a finding that the imposition of SR would provide an added measure of deterrence and protection based on the facts and circumstances of the case. Because defendant had raised a possibility of a different result, but not the requisite probability, the error did not affect his substantial rights. Further, the district court did not err in imposing the length of the SR, which was within the applicable guideline range. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Cancino-Trinidad" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment on their claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983 in favor of defendants. Plaintiffs challenged defendants' reliance on dog-scent lineups, which Defendant Pikett conducted and which the municipalities used to arrest, charge, and hold plaintiffs. Winfrey v. State held that inculpatory evidence obtained from dog-scent lineups could raise a strong suspicion of guilt, but was merely supportive and, when used alone or as primary evidence, was legally insufficient to support a conviction. For the same reasons provided in Winfrey, the court affirmed summary judgment as to Defendants Wright, Fort Bend County, the City of Houston, and the unknown HPD and Fort Bend County employees, on qualified immunity grounds and for failure to establish municipal liability. The court held, however, that Winfrey was distinguishable as to the claims against Defendants Stivers, Anthony, Chappell, and Pikett. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment as to those defendants. View "Curtis, et al v. Anthony, et al" on Justia Law

Petitioner appealed the district court's dismissal of his habeas corpus petition as time-barred because it was filed after the one-year deadline. Petitioner contended that the district court erred by deeming the date the clerk of the court stamped his state post-conviction petition as received to be the date he filed the petition. The court held that, under Texas law, petitioner's 28 U.S.C. 2254 application was deemed filed on the date petitioner turned the application over to prison authorities to be filed. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded and did not reach petitioner's claim that he was entitled to equitable tolling. View "Richards v. Thaler" on Justia Law

Defendants Wallstrum, Clark, and Bryant appealed the denial of their motions to suppress evidence seized during two traffic stops. Defendants pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess cocaine with intent to distribute. The court affirmed the district court's determination that the initial stop was unlawful; reasonable suspicion justified the prolonged detention; and the district court did not clearly err in finding that Bryant's consent to search the car was voluntary. View "United States v. Wallstrum" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to illegal reentry after deportation and was sentenced to 51 months of imprisonment. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's application of a twelve-level adjustment to his base offense level for his previous commission of a drug trafficking offense. Because defendant did not object to the application of the adjustment, the court reviewed for plain error. Concluding that the sentencing error, if any, did not seriously affect the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings, the court declined to exercise its discretion to correct it. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Duque-Hernandez" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for two counts of possession of child pornography and three counts of distribution of child pornography. The court held that the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule applied to the inculpatory emails found on one of his email accounts; the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's convictions; and defendant's convictions were not multiplicitous. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Woerner" on Justia Law

Plaintiff brought suit against a law enforcement officer, the City of Amarillo, and other defendants, alleging that the officer had wrongfully arrested him two years earlier. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the district court's dismissal of his suit because he failed to show good cause for the delay in perfection of service. Because the district court's warning of dismissal and grant of extensions accompanied by generous allotments of time did not influence plaintiff to effect service properly, the court could not say that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing plaintiff's claim. View "Thrasher v. Amarillo Police Dept, et al" on Justia Law