Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Mexico, entered in the United States in 1999. She had authorization to remain for a temporary period, not to exceed six months, but she remained beyond that period without authorization. In 2007 Petitioner was convicted of unlawful possession of fraudulent identifying information. The Department of Homeland Security then charged Petitioner with removability as an alien who remained in the United States for a time longer than permitted. Petitioner filed an application for cancellation of removal for nonpermanent residents, which an immigration judge denied. The Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed Petitioner's appeal. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals denied Petitioner's petition for review, holding (1) Petitioner's ineligibility for cancellation of removal depended solely on whether her prior state-court conviction was for a crime involving moral turpitude; and (2) Petitioner's offense was one of moral turpitude, and therefore, Petitioner was ineligible for cancellation of removal.

Defendant, a police investigator, was charged with participating in the cover-up of the Danzinger Bridge shootings in New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina. Defendant was brought to trial in early 2012. Near the conclusion of his trial, the prosecutor violated two pre-trial rulings on motions in limine that prohibited her from mentioning the case involving the death of Raymond Robair, who died while in police custody. Defendant sought and was granted a mistrial. Defendant further moved to bar retrial on the basis of double jeopardy. The district court denied the motion. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Defendant failed to show that the district court clearly erred in finding that the prosecutor did not intend to cause a mistrial with her improper actions, and therefore, the district court did not err in denying the motion to bar retrial.

Defendant was convicted of conspiracy to commit mail fraud, conspiracy to embezzle funds from employee benefit plans, conspiracy to launder money, mail fraud, embezzlement from employee benefit plans, money laundering, and making a false statement to the Department of Labor. After losing on appeal, he petitioned for habeas relief and was denied. Defendant subsequently filed a new motion to vacate, set aside, or correct the sentence under 28 U.S.C. 2241, arguing that the Supreme Court's GVR ("grant, vacate, remand") in Jackson v. United States constituted a retroactively applicable decision demonstrated he was convicted of a non-offense. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the GVR did not qualify as a retroactively applicable Supreme Court decision.

Defendant Aaron Hernandez appealed his convictions and sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and aiding and abetting the theft of government money. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (1) affirmed the convictions, holding that the district court did not err when it determined without holding a Garcia hearing that defense counsel's prior representation of Defendant's brother would not present an actual conflict of interest at trial; but (2) vacated Defendant's sentence, holding that the district court committed plain error when it calculated Defendant's total adjusted offense level under the Sentencing Guidelines. Remanded for further proceedings.

Defendant Donald Branham pleaded guilty to numerous counts of bank fraud and was sentenced to thirty months in prison and ordered to pay $1.8 million in restitution. The district court issued a writ of garnishment to garnish specified accounts that belonged to Donald and his wife Charlotte. The Branhams moved to dissolve the writ of garnishment on the ground that Charlote's accounts were not community property. They also requested a hearing. The district court denied the Branhams' motions without a hearing. The Branhams appealed. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal without prejudice for want of appellate jurisdiction, holding that the order appealed from was not a final order.

Defendant, an alien, was charged with being unlawfully and knowingly present in the United States after deportation. Defendant entered a guilty plea, and the district court sentenced him to forty-one months' imprisonment and two years' supervised release. The presentence report enhanced the base offense level on the ground that Defendant's previous Florida conviction of "lewd, lascivious act upon a child under sixteen years of age" constituted an enumerated crime of violence (COV) under the Sentencing Guidelines. Defendant objected to that finding, arguing that the statute under which he was convicted, Fla. Stat. 800.04, was broader than the federal COV and none of the conviction documents indicated that his conduct fell under any of the enumerated COV offenses. The court overruled the objection, and Defendant appealed. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in finding that Defendant's conviction under section 800.04 constituted sexual abuse of a minor and was thus a COV within the meaning of the Guidelines.

Chedowry Thomas, Henry Davis, and Woodrow Chapman were tried on counts of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance and attempt to possess with the intent to distribute a controlled substance. All three appellants were convicted on the conspiracy count. The jury determined that, with respect to Thomas and Davis, the offense involved five kilograms or more of cocaine. Thomas and Davis were also convicted of attempt to possess with the intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine. Chapman was acquitted on the attempt count. All three appealed. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (1) affirmed all three judgments of conviction on conspiracy, holding that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions; but (2) reversed the judgments for attempt on the basis of improper venue.

After being arrested by U.S. Border Patrol Agent Harold Gill at a traffic stop in Louisiana, Defendant Francisco Rico-Soto was convicted of harboring illegal aliens. Defendant appealed the admission of evidence obtained from the warrantless stop, claiming lack of reasonable suspicion. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the government presented several different elements that, when combined, led Gill reasonably to suspect criminal activity; (2) these facts triggered the various Brignoni-Ponce factors, which demonstrated that Gill's stop was justified; and (3) the confluence of facts, along with numerous small pieces of confirmatory evidence, justified an agent with Gill's experience in stopping Defendant.

Defendant were convicted of illegal gambling, conspiring to commit illegal gambling, and money laundering for their roles in a "sweepstakes" promotion at three Internet cafes in Texas. Defendants challenged their convictions on a variety of grounds but contended principally that there was insufficient evidence to support their convictions and that the district court erred in refusing to allow them to present a "mistake-of-law" defense. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (1) reversed Defendants' convictions for money laundering for insufficient evidence; and (2) affirmed Defendants' other convictions, holding (i) the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, and (ii) the district court did not err in preventing Defendants from putting on a mistake-of-law defense because they did not reasonably rely on any official statements or written interpretations.

Defendant was convicted of illegal re-entry. Defendant contended that the district court erred in considering his need for anger management courses in determining the length of his sentence. At issue in this case was whether, when the law at the time of trial or plea is unsettled, but becomes clear while the case is pending on appeal, review for the second prong of the plain error test properly considers the law as it stood during the district court proceedings or at the time of the appellate court's decision. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals joined the majority of other circuits in holding that where the law is unsettled at the time of trial but settled by the time of appeal, the plainness of the error should be judged by the law at the time of appeal. The Court then held that the district court's determination under the second prong of the plain error test was plain error, and the error affected Defendant's substantial rights. The Court vacated Defendant's sentence and remanded for resentencing in accordance with this opinion.