Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendants Campbell and Bailey appealed their sentences after pleading guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute anabolic steroids and conspiracy to commit money laundering. Defendants claimed that the district court erred in applying U.S.S.G. 2S1.1(a)(2) in calculating their offense level. The court concluded that defendants invited any procedural error in the calculation of their offense levels by signing plea agreements that recommended that the district court apply section 2S1.1(a)(2). The court also concluded that Bailey properly received criminal history points for his 1998 misdemeanor convictions and for commencing the current offense while on supervised release. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Campbell" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence after pleading guilty to possession of child pornography. The court concluded that the district court did not err in imposing a 20-year sentence that runs consecutive to his state sentence; the district court did not err in imposing a five-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2G2.2(b)(5) for engaging in a pattern of activity involving the sexual abuse or exploitation of a minor; and the court declined to address defendant's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Poe" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence after pleading guilty to illegal reentry by a previously removed alien. The court concluded that the district court did not err in applying a 16-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) based on a prior conviction for second degree manslaughter in Kentucky, which was a crime of violence under section 2L1.2. View "United States v. Malagon-Soto" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence and conviction for one count of sex trafficking by force, fraud or coercion; one count of interstate transportation for prostitution; two counts of sex trafficking of a child; and one count of obstructing sex trafficking enforcement. The court concluded that the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress where the warrant provided enough detail for the officers to know the items to be searched; the court rejected defendant's evidentiary rulings; the court declined to address defendant's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal; defendant's sentence did not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause; and defendant's sentence did not violate defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Campbell" on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of three counts of capital murder and sentenced to death, was denied habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. 2254 but granted a certificate of appealability (COA) on the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel during the penalty phase. The court concluded that counsel's decision not to have petitioner undergo a PET scan; introduce certain medical records from the early 1990s; hire a clinical and forensic psychologist; and interview and ultimately call three lay witnesses did not violate Strickland v. Washington. In this case, the Missouri Supreme Court's decision was neither contrary to, nor involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, nor based on an unreasonable determination of the facts. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for habeas relief. View "Forrest v. Steele" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the district court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence of a firearm found on his person at the time of arrest after defendant pled guilty to being a felon in possession. Defendant, a convicted felon, was in possession of what looked like a gun and defendant's demeanor changed as soon he was asked about the gun. The court concluded that, under the totality of the circumstances, it was reasonable for law enforcement officers to believe defendant posed a danger to himself and others and that he could be neutralized by entering the premises to secure both defendant and the gun. Therefore, the district court did not err in finding exigent circumstances justified the officers' warrantless entry onto defendant's property. View "United States v. Meidel" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit asserting various state and federal claims against, inter alia, arresting officers, the City, his public defender, his probation officer, and two county sheriffs for delaying plaintiff's release. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the district court's grant of summary judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. 1983 claims against defendants. The court concluded that the officers had probable cause to arrest plaintiff on three different occasions; plaintiff failed to allege sufficient facts to suggest that the public defender reached an understanding with the prosecutor or other state actors to violate his constitutional rights; the county sheriffs properly deferred to the MDOC, which held him in extended custody for an extra day; and claims against the city were foreclosed. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Gibson v. Cook, et al." on Justia Law

Defendant, convicted of a firearms and a possession charge, appealed the district court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained during a traffic stop of his vehicle and the evidence obtained during a search of his apartment. The court concluded that the officer had an objectively reasonable basis for justifying the stop of the vehicle. The court concluded that because defendant's vehicle did not have metal license plates and lacked a readily apparent temporary paper registration card, the officer had reasonable suspicion that the vehicle did not comply with state law. Therefore, the officer had a reasonable basis justifying the stop of the vehicle and the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress evidence recovered from the vehicle. The court also concluded that the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress evidence recovered from the apartment where, at the time of the dog sniff, the officer was objectively reasonable in relying on binding precedent. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Givens" on Justia Law

Defendant, a police officer, was found guilty of willfully depriving another person of the right to be free from the use of unreasonable force and knowingly falsifying a police report with the intent to obstruct justice. The government appealed defendant's sentence of 20 months' imprisonment and defendant cross-appealed. The court concluded that the district court, while finding that defendant's conduct was egregious, imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence in this case where the district court varied downward from the bottom of the Guidelines range by 115 months; the district court's justification for the variance failed to support the degree of the variance in this case; and, therefore, the court vacated and remanded for resentencing. The court denied defendant's cross-appeal where the district court did not err in applying a two-level enhancement for physical restraint nor did the district court err in denying a downward departure for victim provocation. View "United States v. Dautovic" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence after being convicted of two counts of bank robbery. The district court sentenced defendant to life imprisonment because he previously had been convicted of two serious violent felonies. The court concluded that defendant's argument, that Alleyne v. United States and the Sixth Amendment require that a jury must find the fact of his prior convictions because it increased the maximum penalty to which he was exposed, was foreclosed by precedent. Further, defendant's argument, that the affirmative defense of 18 U.S.C. 3559(c)(3), and its placement of a burden of persuasion on defendant to show that a prior bank robbery conviction is nonqualifying, contravenes the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, was also foreclosed by precedent. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Roberts" on Justia Law