Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

After petitioner was convicted of murder and sentenced to twenty-five years to life in prison with the possibility of parole, California amended its constitution to give the Governor authority to review parole-board decisions for prisoners convicted of murder. The parole board subsequently found petitioner suitable for parole but the then-Governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, reversed the decision. Petitioner claimed that retroactive application of the interim change to the California Constitution violated the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United States Constitution. The court concluded that the California Supreme Court's decision in In re Rosenkrantz was not an unreasonable application of clearly established law, and neither was the Superior Court's decision in petitioner's case that relied on it. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Biggs v. Sec'y of Cal. Dep't of Corr. & Rehab." on Justia Law

Defendant challenged his conviction and sentence under 8 U.S.C. 1326(a) and (b) for being an alien found in the United States after removal. The court held that the district court correctly rejected defendant's collateral challenge to the validity of the removal order underlying his section 1326(b) sentencing enhancement; rejected defendant's arguments that the district court violated his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation by admitting documents from his immigration file; and rejected defendant's claims that the district court erred procedurally and substantively in imposing a sentence. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Rojas-Pedroza" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a lawful permanent resident charged with removal based on his alleged conviction of two crimes involving moral turpitude (CIMTs), petitioned for review of the BIA's decision concluding that petitioner's conviction for endangerment under Arizona law constituted a CIMT. The Attorney General held in Matter of Silva-Trevino that an IJ could rely on evidence outside the record of conviction to determine whether a petitioner had been "convicted of" a CIMT. The court joined the Third, Fourth, and Eleventh Circuits in holding that Silva-Trevino was wrongly decided. The court held that a CIMT was a generic crime whose description was complete unto itself, such that "involving moral turpitude" was an element of the crime. Because it was an element of the generic crime, an IJ was limited to the record of conviction in determining whether an alien had been "convicted of" a CIMT. In this case, the court concluded that the IJ and BIA improperly considered evidence beyond the record of conviction in holding that petitioner was "convicted of" a "crime involving moral turpitude." Accordingly, the court granted the petition for review and remanded for further proceedings. View "Olivas-Motta v. Holder" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, father of Adolf Anthony Sanchez Gonzalez, sued officers and the City of Anaheim under 42 U.S.C. 1983 for violation of his Fourth Amendment right of familial association and Gonzalez's Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable and excessive force. Gonzalez's daughter and successor-in-interest then brought a separate suit raising similar federal claims and various state law claims. The district court consolidated both actions and granted defendants' motion for summary judgment. The court concluded that striking Gonzalez in the arm with a flashlight was not excessive force given his stubborn refusal to follow the officers' commands; because all three Graham v. Connor factors supported the officers, they were justified in applying significant force; because the officers' prior conduct never amounted to a constitutional violation, the shooting was not unreasonable as a result; and plaintiffs presented no evidence to suggest that the officers, at any point, had a purpose to cause harm unrelated to the legitimate object of arrest or self-protection and, therefore, plaintiffs' claim that the officers' conduct violated their due process right to familial association failed. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Gonzalez v. City of Anaheim" on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of drug trafficking offenses and sentenced to 380 months imprisonment, brought a habeas petition requesting reconsideration of the Bureau of Prisons' (BOP) rejection of his application to the Second Chance Act's, Pub. L. No. 110-199, elderly offenders pilot program. The district court, considering the merits of the case, denied the petition. The court concluded that the appeal was moot because the relief requested was no longer available due to the termination of the pilot program. On the merits, even if petitioner were eligible for the pilot program, his admission to the program would be at the BOP's discretion. Accordingly, the court dismissed the petition. View "McCullough v. Graber" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction of attempted entry after deportation. The court concluded that defendant's prior conviction for unlawful sexual penetration in violation of California Penal Code 289(a)(1), for which he was sentenced to more than one year in custody, constituted an aggravated felony under 18 U.S.C. 16(b) and 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(F). Accordingly, defendant was ineligible for discretionary relief as an aggravated felon and the district court appropriately denied his motion to dismiss. Therefore, defendant's 57-month sentence was reasonable and the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Sandoval-Orellana" on Justia Law

Plaintiff spent 24 years in prison after being convicted for murder based largely upon the perjured testimony of an unreliable jailhouse informant, Edward Fink. Plaintiff filed this action under 42 U.S.C. 1983, claiming that the District Attorney's Office failed to create any system for the Deputy District Attorneys handling criminal cases to access information pertaining to the benefits provided to jailhouse informants and other impeachment information, and failed to train Deputy District Attorneys to disseminate this information. At issue on appeal was whether a district attorney acted as a local or a state official when establishing policy and training related to the use of jailhouse informants. The court concluded that the policies challenged by plaintiff were distinct from the acts the district attorney undertook on behalf of the state. Even taking into account the control and supervisory powers of the Attorney General, the District Attorney represented the county when establishing policy and training related to the use of jailhouse informants. Therefore, a cause of action could lie against the county under 42 U.S.C. 1983. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment on the pleadings. View "Goldstein v. City of Long Beach" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his drug-related convictions, arguing that his due process rights were violated by the government's destruction of evidence and that the trial judge erred in denying his motion to dismiss. In the alternative, defendant argued that the trial judge erred in requiring a showing of bad faith in order to give a remedial jury instruction. The court held that while Supreme Court precedent demanded that a showing of bad faith was required for dismissal, it was not required for a remedial jury instruction. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's denial of the dismissal and reversed the denial of the remedial jury instruction. Accordingly, the court remanded for a new trial with a remedial instruction. View "United States v. Sivilla" on Justia Law

Amy and Vicky, child pornography victims, petitioned for a writ of mandamus pursuant to the Crime Victims Rights Act (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. 3771. The court concluded that the district court did not commit legal error or abuse its discretion in declining to impose joint and several liability in this case. Petitioners' request that this court overrule United States v. Kennedy, which required a court to identify a causal connection between the defendant's offense conduct and the victim's specific losses before awarding restitution pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 2259, was previously considered and denied. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for a writ of mandamus. View "In re: Amy & Vicky, et al v. USDC, Sacramento" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed from the judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. 1983 claim against correctional officials at the Saguaro Correctional Center (SCC), asserting that the decision to house him in the same cell with a member of a rival gang after he had fought with another member of that same gang violated his Eight Amendment rights. The district court rejected defendant's claims that defendants were deliberately indifferent to the risk he faced from the cell assignment. The court concluded that, despite the late Rand v. Rowland notice, plaintiff did not suffer a deprivation of substantial rights when the district court decided the summary judgment motion on the merits. Plaintiff's response demonstrated that he understood the nature of summary judgment and complied with the requirements of Rule 56. Thus, reversal and remand of the district court was not required. Further, the undisputed evidence in the record showed that defendants were not deliberately indifferent to a substantial risk of an attack if the rival gang member and plaintiff were placed in a cell together. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for defendants. View "Labatad v. CCA, et al" on Justia Law