Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

In 2010 Ramirez-Fuentes confessed to being responsible for a bag containing 3.1 kilograms of methamphetamine and for two firearms found in his brother’s apartment and was charged with one count of possession with the intent to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine (21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1)) and one count of possessing firearms in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime (18 U.S.C. 924(c)). The district court sentenced him to 295 months’ imprisonment. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting an argument that the district court erred in admitting testimony from a government expert witness who described the recovered substance as “Mexican methamphetamine,” which he noted is produced by “Mexican nationals,” and who addressed the violence associated with drug trafficking. The court also rejected an argument that the sentence was unreasonable because the district court did not meaningfully consider an argument that Ramirez-Fuentes would be deported after his release from prison. View "United States v. Ramirez-Fuentes" on Justia Law

Poole, an Illinois prisoner, believed that a required $2 co-payment for dental care furnished at the prison violate his rights under the Eighth Amendment. After paying the fee, he sued under 42 U.S.C. 1983. Poole’s complaint “frivolously” accuses defendants of “committing strong arm robbery” against a “captive market of inmates.” After screening the complaint under 28 U.S.C.1915A, the district court dismissed Poole’s claims against several defendants with prejudice, but allowed the action to proceed against Isaacs, the prison healthcare administrator, because Poole alleged that he “didn’t have any money” for the co-payment. That allegation was false, and following discovery, the district court granted summary judgment for Isaacs. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, stating that both the original lawsuit and the appeal were so lacking in merit that they warrant the imposition of two strikes under 28 U.S.C. 1915(g). Isaacs did not deny dental care for Poole, nor is she to blame for the delay in treatment. Poole had sufficient funds in his trust fund account but opted to refuse treatment rather than part with his money. View "Poole v. Issac" on Justia Law

Adigun was charged with three drug offenses after officers seized crack and cocaine powder from him on two separate occasions. On the day of his scheduled trial, Adigun pled guilty in open court and was later sentenced to 151 months’ imprisonment. On appeal, Adigun argued that the district court erred by failing to suppress contraband seized from his car and by incorrectly calculating a 10-year mandatory minimum sentence. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding that Adigun waived any objection to the suppression ruling by entering an unconditional guilty plea before the district court. Although the minimum sentence should have been reduced pursuant to the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, the error was harmless in Adigun’s case because it had no impact on the sentence imposed. View "United States v. Adigun" on Justia Law

In 1999, Earls was convicted in Wisconsin of three felony counts of sexual assault of a six-year-old and sentenced to 45 years’ imprisonment. After exhausting state remedies, Earls sought federal habeas corpus, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. In 2004, the Seventh Circuit ruled in his favor. The state opted for retrial. Earls posted a $25,000 bond and, as conditions of release, agreed to appear at court dates, have no contact with minors, and notify the court of address changes. Earls was listed as living with his sister. In 2005, Wisconsin charged Earls with 12 counts of bail jumping and having contact with a minor. A passport issued to Earl’s former brother-in-law was used to enter Panama, Nicaragua and Costa Rica and, in 2010, the U.S. Marshal Service arrested Earls in Panama. Earls was convicted of making a false statement on a passport application, aggravated identity theft, and knowingly transferring a stolen identification document and sentenced to consecutive term of 36 and 24 months’ imprisonment. The district court noted that this above-range sentence was not greater than necessary, in light of Earls’ prior convictions for sexually abusing his daughter and another 13-year-old, and general lack of respect for the law. The Seventh Circuit affirmed.View "United States v. Earl" on Justia Law

On Halloween 1996, Parish, age 20, was arrested by Elkhart police as he prepared to take his three children trick-or-treating, and charged with attempted murder and armed robbery. No physical evidence tied Parish to the crime. Based mainly on eyewitness testimony, the jury convicted Parish. For eight years, Parish pursued appeals. In 2005, the appellate court ordered a new trial based on his attorney’s failure to properly investigate and introduction of an improper jury instruction. Parish was then 30 years old. The government offered a plea that involved no additional jail time, but Parish refused. The government then dismissed the case. Parish sued under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The jury found in favor of Parish, but awarded only $73,125 in compensatory damages and $5,000 in punitive damages. In his unsuccessful motion for a new trial, Parish presented evidence that the average jury award was nearly $950,000 per year of wrongful imprisonment. The Seventh Circuit reversed, noting that the court admitted testimony of eyewitnesses identifying Parish, but refused to allow Parish to present significant evidence that he was not guilty, including identification of other individuals as possible perpetrators, and recantations by the eyewitnesses. View "Parish v. City of Elkhart, IN" on Justia Law

After he pleaded guilty to a felon-in-possession charge, 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1), Elliott was sentenced as an armed career criminal based on the district court’s finding that a series of three robberies he perpetrated in a five-day period when he was 18 years old were “committed on occasions different from one another,” 18 U.S.C. 924(e)(1). With the ACCA enhancement, the maximum term was 15 years; without it the maximum term would have been 10 years. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting an argument that Elliot had a right to have a jury, rather than the judge, assess the nature of his prior crimes. The court noted that the burglaries at issue occurred on different days and involved different residences and victims. View "United States v. Elliott" on Justia Law

Defendant worked as an assistant branch manager and pled guilty to embezzlement, 18 U.S.C. 656 after stealing more than $40,000 from the bank by manipulating the electronic security system. He was arrested in the Dominican Republic. The district court imposed a two-level enhancement for abuse of a position of trust (U.S.S.G. 3B1.3) and imposed a sentence of six months in prison, followed by two years of supervision with six months of home confinement. The Seventh Circuit rejected challenges to the sentence. View "United States v. Wasilewski" on Justia Law

Defendant, age 46, pleaded guilty to four counts of producing child pornography, 18 U.S.C. 2251(a). He photographed his repeated sexual assaults on a girl who was a friend of his daughters. He obtained additional images by threatening to kill her unless she photographed herself in sexually explicit poses and emailed him the images. The abuses began when she was 11 years old and continued until she was 14. Because his total offense level was 43, his guidelines sentence for each count was life. The judge could not impose that sentence because the statutory maximum for each count was 30 years, 18 U.S.C. 2251(e). The judge imposed the 30-year maximum on one count and concurrent sentences of 20 years on each remaining count, but ordered that the 20-year sentences be served consecutively to the 30-year sentence, making the total sentence 50 years. The guidelines permit the judge to sentence consecutively when necessary to bring the total sentence into the guidelines range, even though the sentence would exceed the statutory maximum for any count, U.S.S.G. 5G1.2(d). Defendant’s lawyer filed an Anders motion to withdraw on the ground that the appeal is frivolous. The Seventh Circuit granted the motion and dismissed the appeal. View "United States v. Craig" on Justia Law

On December 7, 2009, Burd pleaded guilty in Illinois state court to attempted burglary. He had 30 days to withdraw the plea. For the first 29 days of this period, he was held at prison facilities that had no library resources. On the thirtieth day, he was transferred and immediately asked to use the library. Officials told him the library was closed. Burd missed the filing deadline, but continued to seek access to the law library. He filled out request slips, but each time he was denied access because the library was closed. When he explained to Sessler, the prison educational administrator, that he wanted to research withdrawing his plea or an appeal of his sentence, she told him that any such action would be untimely and denied him access to the library. Burd also requested that a fellow inmate be permitted to assist him with his motion. He never received a response. Burd did not seek to set aside his conviction through federal or state habeas corpus before filing under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The Seventh Circuit affirmed rejection of his request for damages as for failure to seek collateral relief.View "Burd v. Sessler" on Justia Law

Woolley was charged in Illinois state court with murder, armed violence, armed robbery, and unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon, arising out the fatal shootings of two victims in 1995. After initially confessing, he later recanted, claiming he had falsely implicated himself in order to protect his wife, Marcia, who committed the murders out of jealousy toward one of the victims. The jury convicted him on all counts. In state post-conviction procedures, Woolley produced an expert who pointed out flaws in expert evidence introduced at trial. After obtaining no relief and exhausting review in state court, Martin filed a federal habeas corpus petition (28 U.S.C. 2254), claiming ineffective assistance of counsel. The district court denied relief. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Woolley’s counsel was ineffective, remaining nearly passive in the face of damning, impeachable testimony from the crime scene investigator, that effectively hollowed out the core of his client’s defense, but Woolley was not prejudiced by the error. View "Woolley v. Gaetz" on Justia Law