Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

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

Marcel Williams filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, challenging the Arkansas lethal injection execution protocol. After the district court denied Williams' motion for a preliminary injunction, he moved for a stay of execution pending appeal. Williams' as-applied challenge alleged that due to his medical conditions, there was a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the execution method would cause him severe pain and serious harm in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The court concluded that Williams failed to offer evidence establishing a significant likelihood of success on the merits. In this case, the State produced testimony that the execution protocol would succeed despite Williams' health conditions; Williams failed to identify a known and available alternative method of execution that would substantially reduce a significant risk of pain; and Williams unreasonably delayed in bringing this as-applied challenge. Accordingly, the court denied the motion for a stay of execution pending appeal. View "Williams v. Kelley" on Justia Law

Marcel Williams, convicted of capital murder, kidnapping, rape, and aggravated robbery, moved for a stay of execution. Williams wanted to re-open the denial of federal habeas relief in 2009, renewing his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel at the guilt and penalty phases of his trial. The court concluded that Williams lacked a reasonable likelihood of success on his claims for Rule 60(b) relief based on ineffective assistance of counsel during either the penalty phase or the guilt phase of his trial. Therefore, Williams was not entitled to an extraordinary stay of execution. View "Williams v. Kelley" on Justia Law

Jack Harold Jones, Jr. appealed the district court's denial of a preliminary injunction, and moved for a stay of execution. Jones argued that, because of his specific medical conditions, the administration of the ADC's lethal-injection protocol will inflict cruel and unusual punishment on him in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The court concluded that Jones's delay in bringing his as-applied claim was sufficient reason to deny a stay; Jones failed to establish a significant possibility that he could show that, as applied to him, the State's lethal injection protocol creates a demonstrated risk of severe pain; and Jones failed to establish that there was a significant possibility that he could identify an alternative method of execution that is feasible, readily implemented, and in fact significantly reduces a substantial risk of severe pain. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's order and denied a stay of execution. View "Jones, Jr. v. Kelley" on Justia Law

After pleading guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, defendant appealed the denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained from a search of a motel room where he was staying. In this case, the motel clerk handed a law enforcement officer a key for the purpose of effecting an eviction, not to conduct a search. The court explained that it could not interpret Mo. Rev. Stat. 315.075 to require innkeepers to ignore police warnings of illicit conduct on hotel premises. Rather, the court must look to the specific facts behind police-initiated evictions. In this case, defendant did not offer, and the record does not convey, any evidence of bad faith on the part of the police. Therefore, the court found that the officer's entry into the motel room was for the lawful purpose of effecting defendant's eviction and the evidence observed during this initial entry was a valid basis for the subsequent search warrant. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress. View "United States v. Peoples" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to receipt of child pornography and was sentenced to 240 months imprisonment and 15 years supervised release. The court concluded, and the government concedes, that the district court erred by applying a five-level sentencing enhancement under USSG 2G2.2(b)(3)(B) for distribution of child pornography for the receipt or with the expectation of receiving a thing of value, because the enhancement was not supported by the record. The court concluded, however, that the district court correctly applied the 15-year mandatory minimum sentence in 18 U.S.C. 2252(b)(1) based on defendant's prior Minnesota conviction for possession of a pornographic work involving minors. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Mayokok" on Justia Law