Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

This case stemmed from a multi-year investigation into an interstate and international drug smuggling and distribution organization. Defendants, Jesus Fabel Diaz-Pellegaud, Jose Garcia, Jose Enrique Burgos-Valdez, and Benjamin Melendez-Rocha, appealed their convictions and sentences on various grounds. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to convict Diaz-Pellegaud, Garcia, and Burgos-Valdez; the court affirmed Garcia's presumptively reasonable guidelines sentence; there was no abuse of discretion in the district court's sentencing of Burgos-Valdez; the district court did not err in denying Melendez-Rocha's request for a new trial where there was "substantial evidence" of his guilt and the verdict was not "substantially swayed" by a prejudicial comment, and therefore the curative instruction was "sufficient in the context of the entire trial" to alleviate any prejudice that could have resulted from the reference to his immigration status; and there was no abuse of discretion in Melendez-Rocha's sentence.

Defendant pled guilty to possession of child pornography and was sentenced to 120 months imprisonment. Defendant appealed his sentence, arguing that the court erred in assessing an enhancement for the number of images he possessed and the court sentenced him improperly by failing to specifically identify the factors it considered at sentencing. The court held that there was no plain error in the district court's decision to impose a five-level increase for possession of more than 600 images of child pornography. The court also held that the record demonstrated that the district court was aware of the relevant factors and carefully considered them when determining defendant's sentence. Therefore, there was no plain error in the district court's explanation of defendant's sentence.

Defendant pleaded guilty to three counts of receipt of child pornography and nine counts of possession of child pornography. Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence. The court held that defendant waived his double jeopardy argument by pleading guilty to the offenses; the district court did not err in assessing the five-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2G2.2(b)(3)(B); and the district court did not err by assessing two criminal history points under U.S.S.G. 4A1.2(e)(2).

Petitioner appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. 2254 petition for habeas corpus. The court affirmed the judgment and rejected defendant's claims that trial counsel failed to investigate or present ballistics evidence; counsel deficiently handled and presented defendant's alibi witness; a conflict of interest adversely affected petitioner's representation; the admission of a victim's identification of petitioner before he died was erroneous; the prosecutors' comments during guilt-phase closing arguments violated his due-process rights under Darden v. Wainwright; counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel because he failed to timely object to all of the comments at issue and failed to challenge the statements in a motion for a new trial; counsel failed to effectively impeach a witness; counsel should have advised petitioner of counsel's various health issues and withdrawn as counsel; counsel deficiently failed to object to the prosecutor's cross-examination of a witness; and the cumulative effects of counsel's errors.

A jury convicted defendant of sex trafficking of a minor, the district court denied his motions for a new trial and entered judgment against him, and sentenced him to 336 months imprisonment. On appeal, defendant contended that the district court committed reversible error by incorrectly instructing the jury it could convict defendant if he knew or acted in reckless disregard of the fact that the victim was younger than 18 years old. Exercising the court's discretion to notice the district court's plain and prejudicial error in instructing the jury, the court reversed and remanded for a new trial, without addressing defendant's remaining contentions.

Defendant pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm and the district court sentenced him to 120 months imprisonment. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's application of the Sentencing Guidelines. The court found no error in the district court's decision to disbelieve defendant's claim that his defensive sweep of the home was suddenly interrupted by an altercation at the front entrance; there was no error in the district court's conclusion that the government disproved defendant's claim of self-defense as an after-the-fact fabrication aimed at furthering his own legal defense; and the district court did not err in finding that the shooting constituted second degree murder rather than voluntary manslaughter and that Guidelines section 2K2.1(c)(1)(B) and 2A1.2 applied.

Defendant pled guilty to possession of materials involving the sexual exploitation of minors, materials discovered during a state investigation into his sexual abuse of his stepdaughter. On appeal, defendant argued that the district court violated Tapia v. United States in imposing the consecutive sentence and erred in imposing a special condition prohibiting him from possessing material which depicted or described sexually explicitly conduct. The court remanded for resentencing where it was not clear on the record whether or not the district court impermissibly based its prison sentence on defendant's rehabilitative needs under Tapia. The court also held that defendant's own statements amply supported the imposition of the special condition.

Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of possession of child pornography. On appeal, defendant argued that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence found on his computers during a search conducted under an allegedly invalid search warrant. The court affirmed the judgment because the officers conducted the search in good faith.

Plaintiff appealed the district court's dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. 1983 claims against the county and the sheriff. At issue was whether plaintiff's due process rights were violated when the sheriff induced plaintiff to plead guilty to a pending felony charge of terroristic threatening in December 1989. The court concluded that the alleged coercion did not render plaintiff's plea involuntary; there was no imposition of section 1983 liability on a state actor for coercing or inducing a guilty plea that was later determined not to be knowing and involuntary; an official holding a criminal defendant in pretrial custody could reasonably assume that the trial court would properly determine whether the defendant was competent to stand trial or plead guilty; and plaintiff failed to present evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that the sheriff's statements were the proximate cause of the violation of plaintiff's constitutional rights. The court held that because plaintiff failed to establish a violation of his constitutional rights by the sheriff, the district court properly dismissed plaintiff's official capacity claims against the sheriff and the county.

Nichole Marie Forde and James Toliver each pled guilty to drug charges involving the distribution of a mixture containing cocaine base and the district court sentenced both to imprisonment and subsequent probation. On appeal, Forde challenged the reasonableness of her sentence, and Toliver challenged a special condition of probation prohibiting him from using alcohol and "from entering bars, taverns, or other establishments whose primary source of income is derived from the sale of alcohol." The court held that Forde's sentence was substantively reasonable where the district court expressly considered and rejected her contention that her relationship with an abusive boyfriend turned her into a drug dealer; the district court considered the government's decision not to file an information to establish prior convictions; and Forde's remaining arguments were without merit. The court held that the district court did not abuse its broad sentencing discretion in imposing the special condition where the district court considered Toliver's extensive history of drug abuse.