Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff was convicted in state court of three counts of criminal sexual conduct for raping a thirteen year old girl. After filing postconviction motions and a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. 2254, plaintiff discovered that a crime lab had improperly handled his DNA sample. He filed this new habeas petition, arguing that the state's failure to disclose the error violated his constitutional rights. The district court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to consider a second or successive petition because plaintiff had failed to obtain preauthorization, but it granted a certificate of appealability on whether preauthorization was required. The court concluded that plaintiff's section 2254 petition was second or successive and denied his motion for preauthorization. View "Crawford v. State of Minnesota" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute heroin and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. After entering his plea, defendant moved to withdraw the plea, arguing that his counsel had given him inadequate information about the Sentencing Guidelines. The court held that the district court properly determined that the prior sentences were "separate" for purposes of U.S.S.G. 4B1.1; defendant's sentence was substantively reasonable; and defendant failed to show that his counsel's performance was deficient and therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the request to withdraw the plea. View "United States v. Jones" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the district court's denial of his motion to reduce his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). Because the written plea agreement in this case did not expressly state a Sentencing Guidelines range as the basis for the parties' agreed upon sentence, it could not be said that the sentence imposed was based on a sentencing range that was subsequently lowered by the Sentencing Commission. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion. View "United States v. Browne" on Justia Law

Defendant, husband and wife, were convicted of drug related charges. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that wife aided and abetted the distribution of methamphetamine and conspiracy to distribute 50 grams or more of a mixture containing methamphetamine; the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying part of husband's discovery motion; and the district court did not commit procedural sentencing error by imposing a two-level increase under U.S.S.G. 2D1.1(b)(12). The court held, however, that even under plain error review, the district court's failure to apply amended U.S.S.G. 2D1.1(a)(5) resulted in an erroneous application of the Guidelines that could have substantially increased wife's advisory guidelines range. Accordingly, the court affirmed husband's conviction and sentence; affirmed wife's conviction; but vacated wife's sentence and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Miller" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed an eight-count second amended complaint against a police officer; the Kansas City Board of Police Commissioners, an individual, Kona Grill, and Plaza Security, asserting a variety of federal and state claims arising out of his arrest at the Kona Grill. The court concluded that plaintiff's refusal to sign his bar tab gave the officer probable cause to arrest him for theft of restaurant services; the district court correctly granted summary judgment to the officer on plaintiff's excessive-force claim; and plaintiff's state-law claims against the officer failed as a matter of law because the officer had probable cause to arrest plaintiff. The court also held that plaintiff's remaining claims failed as a matter of law. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Royster v. Nichols, et al" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of enticement of a minor for the purpose of engaging in prohibited sexual activity and one count of enticement of a minor to engage in sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of producing a visual depiction of such conduct. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's denial of a downward variance from the Guidelines range of 235 to 293 months. The court concluded that the district court considered the relevant factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) and reached a substantively reasonable conclusion. Moreover, the district court's decision to place greater emphasis in this case on factors that favored a sentence within the advisory range than on other section 3553(a) factors that might favor a more lenient sentence was a permissible exercise of the considerable discretion available to a sentencing court. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Hammond" on Justia Law

Defendant was sentenced to 165 months imprisonment for drug charges and 120 months imprisonment for an assault charge to run concurrently with the sentence for the drug charge. Defendant appealed both his sentences. The court held that the sentence for the drug charge was not substantively unreasonable and the sentence for the assault charge was not procedurally unreasonable. Because the district court did not abuse its discretion or otherwise err, the court affirmed defendant's sentences. View "United States v. Cook" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to mail fraud and money laundering. On appeal, defendant challenged his sentence, claiming that the district court procedurally erred. The court affirmed, holding that the district court properly enhanced his sentence for obstruction of justice pursuant to U.S.S.G. 3C1.1 and the district court did not err in refusing to reduce his sentence pursuant to U.S.S.G. 3E1.1. View "United States v. Dufresne, III" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm and was sentenced to 15 years in prison. The district court ruled that defendant's four prior state convictions for fleeing police in a motor vehicle constituted violent felonies, thus making him an armed career criminal subject to a 15-year minimum sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e). The court affirmed and held that the government did not breach the plea agreement by arguing that defendant's violations of the Minnesota fleeing statute made him an armed career criminal, which increased his sentence above the range contemplated by the plea agreement. View "United States v. Bartel" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his firearm and drug convictions, arguing that the district court erred in denying his motions for mistrial and new trial based on improper testimony and his motion for judgment of acquittal on three counts based on insufficiency of the evidence. The court held that the three references to defendant's criminal history were not unfairly prejudicial and that there was sufficient evidence to convict defendant of the crimes for which he was charged. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Fetters" on Justia Law