Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant was charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm and sentenced to 188 months imprisonment. Defendant challenged his conviction and sentence. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, the court concluded that a reasonable jury could have found defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The court also concluded that there was no procedural error in sentencing defendant as an armed career criminal; the district court did not abuse its considerable discretion in sentencing defendant to 188 months imprisonment; and defendant's sentence, which fell at the bottom of the guideline range and only eight months above the mandatory minimum, did not violate the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Montgomery" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the district court's denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2254. The court agreed with the district court that the failure of defendant's trial counsel to object to an officer's motel testimony did not entitle defendant to habeas relief. Even if the court assumed that the testimony constituted hearsay and that the failure of counsel to object constituted deficient performance, there was no reasonable probability that the outcome of defendant's trial would have changed had the testimony been disallowed. The court found no basis on which to upset the state court's determination that defendant failed to carry his burden of proving his trial counsel did not investigate a certain witness. Further, the state court's determination that defendant failed to show prejudice was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of federal law where there was no reasonable probability that the testimony would have changed the outcome of defendant's trial. Because the court affirmed the denial of the petition on the merits, the court did not address the timeliness issue. View "Cochran v. Dormire, et al" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of harboring a fugitive and providing a firearm to a prohibited person after allowing a felon to stay in his recreational vehicle. On appeal, defendant challenged his conviction. The court held that there was sufficient evidence to convict defendant of providing a firearm to a prohibited person; the conviction did not violate defendant's Second Amendment rights; the district court did not abuse its discretion by using a special verdict form in this case; and the district court did not abuse its discretion in giving the two jury instructions at issue. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Stegmeier" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of knowingly engaging in a sexual act with the victim when she was incapable of appraising the nature of the conduct and physically incapable of declining participation in that sexual act. On appeal, defendant challenged his conviction, arguing that the district court erred in refusing to give two of his proposed jury instructions and that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction. The court concluded that the district court's failure to give defendant's instruction under 18 U.S.C. 2242(2) deprived him of his defense that he did not know that the victim was incapacitated or otherwise unable to deny consent. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for a new trial. View "United States v. Rouillard" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of four counts of interstate stalking and two counts of interstate extortionate threat. On appeal, defendant challenged his convictions and sentence. The court held that the interstate stalking statute, 18 U.S.C. 2261A(2)(A), did not violate defendants right to freedom of speech under the First Amendment; defendant waived his right to appeal the district court's denial of his motion for mistrial; nonetheless, any error by the district court in failing to grant a mistrial was harmless; the district court did not err by instructing the jury that a "sexual relationship" could be a "thing of value" under 18 U.S.C. 875(d); the district court made the requisite independent finding that defendant committed perjury and properly applied the two-level sentencing enhancement for obstruction of justice; and the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant of all charges. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Petrovic" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of sexual abuse of an incapacitated person, sexual abuse of a minor, aggravated sexual abuse, and burglary. On appeal, defendant challenged his conviction. The court concluded that the jury instruction on the charge of sexual abuse of an incapacitated person fairly and adequately submitted the issues to the jury; the court rejected defendant's argument that the instruction constructively amended the indictment; there was sufficient evidence to sustain defendant's burglary conviction; defendant's sentence of 360 months imprisonment was procedurally sound; and defendant was not eligible for an acceptance of responsibility reduction. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Bruguier" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm based on evidence police officers obtained following a pat-down search outside a home. On appeal, defendant argued that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress the evidence and statements obtained as a result of the search because the officers did not have a reasonable articulable suspicion that criminal activity was afoot or that defendant was armed and dangerous. From the totality of the circumstances, the court concluded that the officer had reasonable suspicion to suspect the vehicle at issue was stolen. Because the officer already had a reasonable suspicion that defendant might have stolen the vehicle, the officer also was justified in suspecting that defendant might possess weapons. Because the Terry stop was proper, the district court did not err in refusing to suppress defendant's subsequent Mirandized confession, as it was not the fruit of a poisonous tree. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Cotter" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to rape and his plea agreement stated that the government would recommend a reduction in his offense level if he accepted responsibility for his crime during his presentence interview. On appeal, the court held that the government had not breached the plea agreement by failing to recommend a reduction for acceptance of responsibility where defendant did not demonstrate that he had accepted responsibility. The court also held that the district court did not err in calculating defendant's sentence where he made his plea agreement knowingly and voluntarily and he waived his right to contest the sentence or the district court's calculation of the guideline range. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Justin Birdhorse" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of being a felon in possession of ammunition and a firearm, and being a felon in possession of a stolen firearm. Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence. The court held that defendant's Sixth Amendment rights were not violated where he waived the attorney-client privilege; his Fifth Amendment rights were not violated by a fundamentally unfair trial; the district court did not err by admitting the prior-acts evidence of the events leading up to the charges; the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying his motions for mistrial and a new trial; the district court did not err by denying the motion for acquittal based on insufficiency of the evidence; none of the alleged errors were errors and therefore, there was no cumulative effect; and the district court did not err by applying a two-level adjustment for obstruction of justice based on the attempted escape. Accordingly, the judgment was affirmed. View "United States v. Tyerman" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to interference with interstate commerce through robbery by threats or violence; brandishing a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence; felon in possession of a firearm; and escape from federal custody. Defendant subsequently appealed his sentence, arguing that the district court abused its discretion in imposing the same sentence on remand even though the career criminal enhancement no longer applied. The court concluded that the record showed that the district court imposed the sentence based on its careful evaluation of the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors and therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing defendant to 384 months imprisonment. View "United States v. Jones" on Justia Law