Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's 120-month sentence for being a felon in possession, holding that the district court's statement to the crime victim at sentencing did not reflect bias or partiality. The Eighth Circuit explained that the district court's spontaneous expression of empathy for a crime victim's impact statement reflected no deep-seated antagonism, and its statement of reasons for imposing a 120-month sentence reflected thorough and proper consideration of the statutory sentencing factors. Rather, the district court's statement furthered the congressional policy of encouraging crime victim participation in the criminal justice process. View "United States v. Minard" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed a commitment order, holding, pursuant to the plain language of 18 U.S.C. 4241(d), that once a defendant is found incompetent to stand trial, a district judge has no discretion in whether or not to commit him. The Eighth Circuit agreed with its sister circuits that section 4241(d) imposes a mandatory duty to commit a defendant who is found incompetent to the custody of the Attorney General, even if there is undisputed medical evidence that the defendant cannot be restored to competency. In this case, defendant's firearms offense and need for constant care by aging parents strongly indicated that the assistance of BOP experts would be needed in the section 4246 analysis. The Eighth Circuit also held that the limited commitment mandated by section 4241(d) complied with due process limitations outlined in Jackson v. Indiana, and the Attorney General, not the district court, has the discretion to order a non-custodial alternative. View "United States v. Dalasta" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the denial of a 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion for post-conviction relief, holding that petitioner's claim, that he was denied due process when the district court entered an amended judgment that modified the restitution order without ensuring that he was given notice and an opportunity to be heard, was not cognizable under section 2255. The Eighth Circuit explained that the district court's order amending the judgment did not result in a new sentence or judgment because there was no substantive proceeding that adjudicated petitioner's guilt or determined the appropriate punishment. Further, the district court did not alter the amount of petitioner's restitution obligation or otherwise change his sanction. Therefore, the district court correctly dismissed petitioner's successive motion for lack of authorization from the court of appeals. View "Dyab v. United States" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's application of sentencing enhancements to reflect defendant's understated criminal history and his recidivism. Defendant pleaded guilty to possessing a gun while a felon and was sentenced to 96 months in prison. The district court did not abuse its discretion by departing upward under USSG 4A1.3 to accurately reflect defendant's extensive criminal history, gun use, driving under the influence, burglaries, and assaultive behavior. Furthermore, defendant's sentence was substantively reasonable where the district court reviewed the evidence fully aware of the applicable sentencing factors. View "United States v. Taylor, Jr." on Justia Law

In three consolidated cases, the court concluded that the motion for relief and the petition for writ constitute second or successive habeas applications, and denied authorization for the district court to consider them; petitioner's claim that his counsel was ineffective for failing to undertake an investigation into juror bias or misconduct was sufficiently similar to a habeas corpus application; and, even if the court were to conclude that the motion was not a second or success habeas petition, petitioner has not shown extraordinary circumstances that would justify relief. The court denied petitioner's application for a certificate of appealability as moot; petitioner's protective application to file a second or successive habeas petition; and motions for stay of execution that were currently pending in each of the three cases. View "Williams v. Kelley" on Justia Law

The court affirmed the denial of habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. 2254 to petitioner, convicted of first degree felony murder, rejecting his claims that defense counsel provided ineffective assistance by advising him not to testify after counsel had promised the jury that he would. The court concluded that the Minnesota Supreme Court did not unreasonably apply Strickland v. Washington, because defense counsel's change in strategy was based on unexpected developments. The court rejected petitioner's claim that the Minnesota Supreme Court's decision was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts where the record supported the state court's factual findings. View "Bahtuoh v. Smith" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to accessing and possessing child pornography, possessing child obscenity, and violating the terms of his supervised release. The district court sentenced defendant to the statutory mandatory minimum for each offense and ran the sentences for the new conduct concurrently to each other, but consecutively to the revocation sentence. The court concluded that the district court did not ignore the mitigating factors; rather, the mitigating factors were a major focus at the sentencing hearing. In this case, the district court expressly addressed the essence of defendant's position, and did not fail to consider a relevant factor that should have received significant weight. The court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by making defendant's revocation sentence run consecutive to any other sentences. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Beyers" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction after pleading guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. The district court imposed a sentencing enhancement pursuant to the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e)(1), based on defendant's two prior Arkansas residential burglary convictions. The court concluded that the Arkansas residential burglary convictions did not qualify as ACCA predicate felonies because Arkansas residential burglary categorically sweeps more broadly than generic burglary. Accordingly, the court vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Sims" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction of one count of conspiracy to distribute heroin and one count of possessing heroin with the intent to distribute. Defendant admitted that he distributed heroin, but he argued that the government's decision to prosecute him violated his free exercise rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), 42 U.S.C. 2000bb-1. Defendant alleged that he is a student of Esoteric and Mysticism studies who created a religious non-profit to distribute heroine to the sick, lost, blind, lame, deaf, and dead members of God's Kingdom. The district court assumed without deciding that defendant's practice of distributing heroin was an exercise of sincerely held religious beliefs and that the prosecution therefore substantially burdened his exercise of religion. The court explained that the government was not prosecuting defendant for engaging in a "circumscribed, sacramental use" of heroin, but for distributing heroin to others for non-religious uses. The court explained that it had no difficulty concluding that prosecuting defendant under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1), would further a compelling governmental interest in mitigating the risk that heroin will be diverted to recreational users; the government has chosen the least restrictive means necessary to further that interest; and the court rejected defendant's argument that he was entitled to present his RFRA defense to the jury. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Anderson" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed from this 18 month prison sentence imposed after revoking his supervised release. The court concluded that the district court did not err when it properly analyzed the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors; the sentence was substantively reasonable where the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing defendant, given his troubled history while on supervised release, as well as domestic assault; and thus the court affirmed the sentence. View "United States v. Ford" on Justia Law