Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant appealed the denial of his motion to dismiss an indictment charging attempted entry after deportation. The court applied the modified categorical approach and held that defendant's state conviction for aggravated assault constituted a crime of violence. Consequently, defendant was not eligible for voluntary departure at his February 2005 immigration hearing. Accordingly, defendant's attempt to attack collaterally the deportation order underlying his illegal reentry conviction because he was not adequately advised of the voluntary departure remedy failed. The court affirmed the district court's judgment. View "United States v. Cabrera-Perez" on Justia Law

Petitioner challenged the district court's dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus because it was time barred. In order to determine whether petitioner's state post-conviction petition for relief was a "properly filed" application that was eligible for tolling, the court looked to Nevada state filing requirements. Although Nevada applied the prison mailbox rule to state notices of appeal filed by pro se prisoners, it has expressly rejected application of the rule to state post-conviction relief petitions. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court View "Orpiada v. McDaniel" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the district court's grant of the government's motion for authorization to medicate defendant involuntarily. Determining that the court had jurisdiction to review the district court's involuntary medication order under the collateral order doctrine, the court concluded that the district court did not clearly err in determining that defendant suffered from a mental illness. In regards to the governmental interest in involuntary medication, the district court must consider the potential for and anticipated length of future civil commitment in the event defendant is not medicated and the amount of time defendant had already been confined, versus the period of confinement that could reasonably be expected if defendant were restored to competency and convicted of the charged offense. The district court should also consider any other significant factors that could strengthen or weaken the governmental interests in prosecuting defendant, including the extent to which delaying the prosecution would jeopardize the government's position at trial. It is not clear from the record that the district court conducted this inquiry. A Sell order must identify the duration of time that involuntary treatment of the defendant may continue before the treating physicians are required to report back to the court on the defendant's mental condition and progress. In this case, the parties agreed that the district court's orders did not specify the time limitations. Accordingly, remand is necessary on this issue. Because remand is necessary, a new Sell inquiry is required because of the amount of time that has passed since the district court's order was entered. If the district court determines on remand that no alternative basis for forcibly medicating defendant is indicated, it should proceed to consider all four Sell factors anew. View "United States v. Brooks" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of illegal reentry in 2011. The district court imposed probation along with a stayed custodial sentence, exceeding its authority under 18 U.S.C. 3561(a)(3). Defendant was again convicted of illegal reentry in 2013. Defendant appealed the probation revocation proceedings, arguing that the district court in 2013 lacked jurisdiction because of the defect in the underlying 2011 sentence. The court concluded that the district court had jurisdiction to revoke probation. Because defendant never moved to correct the underlying sentence under 28 U.S.C. 2255, he was in fact still serving a term of probation at the time of the new offense, so the district court in 2013 properly assumed jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. 3565(a). The court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a term of supervised release. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Castro-Verdugo" on Justia Law

Petitioner appealed the district court's dismissal of his second federal habeas petition, arguing that because the district court dismissed his first petition without first providing him an opportunity to amend the petition, he was entitled to equitable tolling from the date the district court dismissed his first petition until the filing of his second petition. The court reversed and remanded, holding that equitable tolling rendered the "failure to instruct" claim raised in the second petition timely. On remand, the district court must determine if any other claims raised by the second petition were exhausted at the time the district court erroneously dismissed his first petition, relate back to any properly exhausted claim, or are otherwise entitled to equitable tolling. View "Butler v. Long" on Justia Law

Petitioner sought federal habeas relief on the basis that the district court improperly instructed the jury on self-defense in violation of his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process. The jury instruction should have read: "An honest but unreasonable belief in the necessity for self-defense" but the Nevada Supreme Court used "an honest but reasonable belief." The error reduced the State's burden for convicting petitioner of murder instead of voluntary manslaughter. The instruction was facially erroneous in regard to the kind of provocation for manslaughter. The court concluded that the error was not harmless. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's denial of the petition for writ of habeas corpus and remanded with instructions. View "Dixon v. Williams, Sr., et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, currently incarcerated at SRCI, filed suit pro se under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that prison officials violated his due process rights by housing him in the Intensive Management Unit (IMU) for twenty-seven months without periodic, meaningful review of his status. The court concluded that plaintiff's conditions of confinement in the IMU implicated a protected liberty interest under any plausible baseline. Nonetheless, the court concluded that plaintiff's claims against the Oregon Department of Corrections and his damages claims against the individual defendants in their official capacities were barred by the Eleventh Amendment. Plaintiff's remaining damages claims were barred by qualified immunity. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment on plaintiff's claim for declaratory relief because the record showed that plaintiff had been released from the IMU and there was no evidence that he was likely to again be subject to the challenged conditions. View "Brown v. Oregon Dept. of Corr." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for attempted entry after deportation and making a false claim of United States citizenship. The court concluded that the use of defendant's post-conviction silence to impeach him violated his rights under Doyle v. Ohio. The court concluded that a Doyle violation occurs where the prosecution uses defendant's post-invocation silence to impeach him, regardless of whether the police complied with Miranda. Accordingly, the court reversed defendant's conviction and remanded. View "United States v. Ramirez-Estrada" on Justia Law

Petitioner appealed the denial of his habeas petition challenging the application of amended California Penal Code Section 2933.6 against him as a violation of his right against ex post facto application of the law. That amended Section 2933.6 applies only prospectively, only to intervening conduct, and does not result in the forfeiture of credits already earned makes it factually distinguishable from the ex post facto holdings in Weaver v. Graham and Lynce v. Mathis. In this case, petitioner's only intervening conduct - continued gang affiliation - triggered the reduction in time credits. Greenfield v. Scafati also does not support petitioner's position. Accordingly, the state court's denial of relief was not an objectively unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Nevarez v. Barnes" on Justia Law

Defendant is a United States citizen with a history of convictions for smuggling illegal aliens. At issue was whether defendant encouraged or induced an illegal alien to reside in the United States or aided and abetted the commission of this crime merely by escorting that alien from a fast food restaurant near the border to a nearby vehicle. The court concluded that encouraging an illegal alien to reside in the United States must mean something more than merely transporting such an alien within this country. On this scant record, no rational trier of fact could conclude that defendant encouraged an illegal alien to reside in the United States. Accordingly, there was insufficient evidence to prove that defendant aided and abetted the commission of the crime. The court vacated the district court's judgment revoking defendant's supervised release and remanded with instructions to dismiss the petition. View "United States v. Thum" on Justia Law