Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Appellant filed a petition for a writ of coram nobis, seeking to vacate his conviction for federal wire fraud on the ground that his attorney failed to properly advise him about the immigration consequences of pleading guilty. The district court denied relief partly because the district court believed appellant was unable to show prejudice. The court concluded that appellant's first contention that his lawyer’s performance was deficient because he failed to “negotiate an effective plea bargain” and to “mitigate harm under the plea agreement[.]” was foreclosed by Padilla v. Kentucky and Chaidez v. United States. The court concluded that it makes no sense to suggest that although defense attorneys had no duty to advise their clients about the immigration consequences of pleading guilty prior to Padilla, they nonetheless had a duty to research those consequences and take them into account when negotiating a plea deal. In regard to appellant's contention that his attorney provided ineffective assistance by affirmatively misrepresenting the potential immigration consequences of a conviction, the court concluded that the district court should not have denied the petition based solely on the timing of defense counsel’s misrepresentations. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Newman" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to injuring a dwelling and placing lives in jeopardy, and discharging a firearm during a crime of violence. Defendant was sentenced to 25 years of imprisonment. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's inadvertent indication on the written judgment of conviction that defendant register as a sex offender, and challenged the sentence as substantively and procedurally unreasonable. Because the government had not asked the court to enforce the appeal waiver regarding the sex offender registration requirement, the court addressed defendant's challenge on the merits and remanded to the district court to conform the written judgment to the oral sentence. However, the court agreed with the government that defendant validly waived his right to appeal the reasonableness of his sentence and dismissed defendant's challenge to his term of imprisonment. View "United States v. Ortega-Hernandez" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for possession of ammunition by a felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1). The court concluded that there was sufficient evidence to convict defendant. In this case, based on his girlfriend's statement that defendant was the owner of the bag containing the bullets, the jury could reasonably conclude that defendant constructively possessed the ammunition, and based on defendant's phone call from the police interview room where he instructed his girlfriend to conceal contraband. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Boyd" on Justia Law