Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant appealed his convictions stemming from charges related to his participation in a scheme to steal checks and credit cards. The court concluded that defendant could not challenge on appeal the district court's giving of the precise jury instruction that he requested; rejected defendant's argument that the district court constructively amended the indictment; and concluded that the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant of identity theft. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Mariano" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of the interstate kidnap, rape, and murder of a sixteen-year-old. On appeal, defendant challenged the denial of his motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence of death under 28 U.S.C. 2255. The court concluded that defendant's proffered evidence, taken as true, failed to establish that his trial counsel's allegedly deficient performance was prejudicial to defendant. Further, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant's request for an evidentiary hearing. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Purkey v. United States" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the district court's denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea after he pleaded guilty to drug offenses. The court concluded that defendant's misunderstanding that he was guaranteed the ability to attend the Minnesota Teen Challenge, a long-term, faith-based chemical dependency program, did not permit withdrawal of the plea where the district court never directly said that Teen Challenge was not a part of the plea agreement, just not a part of the sentence; the record and presentence investigation report amply supported a determination that defendant likely committed the offenses; defendant had enough time to reach and consider the plea agreement; defendant's counsel's performance did not violate Lafler v. Cooper; and defendant's failure to object to counsel's performance precluded his ineffective assistance claim. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Norvell" on Justia Law

After defendants, Wendell O. Maness and Carolyn H. Maness, filed for bankruptcy, Legendary Stone sought a determination from the bankruptcy court that the indebtedness due from Top Shop, the company defendants owned, was nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. 523(a)(2)(A), and that defendants were liable for such amounts under Missouri's lien fraud statute, Mo. Rev. Stat. 429.014. Two days before defendants filed for bankruptcy, Legendary Stone filed a criminal complaint against Wendell. Wendell was charged with theft under the lien fraud statute and subsequently was arrested, booked, and released on signature bond. The prosecutor eventually dismissed the charges against Wendell. Defendants then filed a counterclaim against Legendary Stone in the adversary proceeding asserting that Legendary Stone's actions in regards to the criminal complaint were attempts to collect a debt and willful violations of the automatic stay. The bankruptcy appellate panel affirmed the bankruptcy court's dismissal of defendants' counterclaim where Legendary Stone met its burden of presenting detailed evidence that its representatives were not attempting to use the criminal prosecution to collect a debt and where defendants failed to prove otherwise. View "Legendary Stone Arts, LLC v. Maness, et al." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction on five counts of making a false claim for a tax refund on January 9, 2009; making a false claim for a tax refund on March 27, 2009; uttering a forged treasury check on March 9, 2009; mail fraud in January 2009; and aggravated identity theft on January 9, 2009. The court concluded that there was sufficient evidence to convict defendant; the court rejected defendant's challenge to the district court's decision to grant the third motion in limine, asserting that his intent in offering such evidence was to show that he made the relevant filings in good faith, because it was irrelevant under Federal Rule of Evidence 402; and the district court did not abuse its broad discretion in denying defendant's motions to continue. The court remanded with instructions that the district court modify its written judgment to conform to its oral pronouncement of special condition two of supervised release. View "United States v. Jirak" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and distribution of methamphetamine. Defendant appealed her conviction and sentence. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant. The court also concluded that the district court did not clearly err in denying defendant safety valve relief where the district court appropriately viewed the trial testimony, the evidence, and arguments presented at sentencing concerning defendant's and her families' participation in drug trafficking, in light of defendant's denial of involvement. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Hinojosa" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction of four counts of making false claims against the United States. The court concluded that the district court did not err by not conducting a third Faretta inquiry where defendant had the benefit of two prior hearings and the district court was satisfied that his election to proceed pro se was knowing and voluntary under all the circumstances, and the court rejected defendant's claims of error. The court also concluded that there was sufficient evidence to convict defendant. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Miller" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of wire fraud, money laundering, and making false statements to the United States Probation Office. On appeal, defendant argued that the district court erred at trial in admitting certain evidence and that he was denied his right to "conflict-free" counsel and a fair trial. The court concluded, inter alia, that defendant's plea-statement waiver was knowing and voluntary and thus the district court did not err in allowing the government to successfully offer the plea agreement factual stipulation as evidence against defendant; the court affirmed the district court's admission of the factual stipulation under Federal Rule of Evidence 403; the court affirmed the denial of defendant's motion to sever because the district court did not abuse its discretion in its determination that defendant's prior conviction for wire fraud and money laundering would be admissible on all charges and would not be unduly prejudicial; the court dismissed plaintiff's Sixth Amendment challenge without prejudice because the record was not fully developed enough to hold that a plain miscarriage of justice occurred; and the court affirmed the district court's decision to continue with trial despite defendant's brief absence. View "United States v. Washburn" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court concluded that even if the district court abused its discretion in restricting the cross-examination of a witness, any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because additional evidence would have been cumulative; the district court did not err in refusing to admit any evidence regarding the magistrate judge's finding that the witness lacked credibility where the evidence was hearsay, irrelevant, and cumulative; and the district court did not clearly abuse its discretion in denying a new trial where the record did not clearly demonstrate a compromise verdict. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Jones" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence stemming from his conviction for conspiring to manufacture and distribute at least 50 grams of actual methamphetamine and 500 grams of meth mixture or substance. The court concluded that the district court did not err in applying a sentencing enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2D1.1(b)(13)(C)(ii) for creating a substantial risk of harm to human life or the environment because of the meth farm's rural location; the district court did not clearly err in attributing to defendant his girlfriend's pseudoephedrine purchases where, in light of their extensive joint meth use and pseudoephedrine distribution, it was reasonably foreseeable to defendant that his girlfriend would purchase pseudoephedrine from pharmacies; and the district court did not err in using information in the proffer agreement to determine his guideline range. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Loesel" on Justia Law