Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant was convicted of possessing a gun as a felon and subsequently appealed the denial of his motion to suppress evidence from his apartment. Police officers accidentally knocked open defendant's apartment door while looking for a potentially dangerous homicide suspect. Rather than stand in the open doorway as easy targets, the officers entered the apartment. They found a loaded handgun, some marijuana, and defendant, who said something suggesting the gun was his. The court affirmed the conviction based on the exigent circumstance exception to the warrantless search of the apartment. In this case, when the apartment door unexpectedly opened, the officers reasonably felt in danger and faced a split-second choice between entry and retreat. View "United States v. Roberts" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the district court's denial of his motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). The court concluded that, although the district court acknowledged defendant's good conduct while in prison, the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to reduce defendant's sentence. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Hernandez-Marfil" on Justia Law

Defendant was found guilty of violating the Hobbs Act and brandishing a weapon during a crime of violence, and was sentenced to life imprisonment. The court concluded that the district court did not clearly err by overruling defendant's Batson challenge where the district court was permitted to credit the government's observations; defendant's constitutional challenge to the Hobbs Act fails because Congress has the constitutional authority to pass such legislation; defendant's robbery of a jewelry store met the Hobbs Act jurisdictional requirement because the stolen jewelry had been made outside of Missouri and shipped to a store in Missouri where it was offered for sale; the district court did not err by ruling that defendant's robbery conviction was a "serious violent felony" under 18 U.S.C. 3559(c)(2)(F)(ii); defendant's 2006 Illinois conviction for aggravated robbery qualifies as a prior serious violent felony; because defendant's argument is an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, his 2001 Tennessee conviction cannot be collaterally attacked here; the district court properly sentenced defendant to life imprisonment under section 3559(c); and the court rejected defendant's evidentiary challenges. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. House" on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of second-degree drug trafficking, challenged the denial of his petition for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. 2254. Petitioner argued that his trial counsel had been constitutionally ineffective because the lawyer failed to interview or present the testimony of petitioner's codefendant. The codefendant had been willing to testify that the drugs belonged to him and that petitioner had no knowledge of their presence in the rental car. On appeal, petitioner contends that the state court contravened federal law when it stated that even if petitioner’s counsel had called codefendant, “the outcome of the proceeding would not have changed.” According to petitioner, the omission from this statement of Strickland v. Washington’s “reasonable probability” language shows that the court applied a more rigorous “sufficiency of the evidence test” when making its prejudice determination. The court agreed with the district court that this alleged imprecision of the state court's opinion fails to demonstrate that its decision was contrary to Strickland’s prejudice standard. The court rejected petitioner's claim that the state court contravened Strickland by basing its prejudice determination on “the subjective views of the trial judge in this court-tried case.” Finally, the state court's application of Strickland's prejudice test was not unreasonable. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Woods v. Norman" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the district court's imposition of an above-Guidelines sentence and the district court's refusal to order that the federal sentence run concurrently to state sentences. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing an above-Guidelines sentence of 90 months’ imprisonment where the district court cited defendant's extensive criminal history and the circumstances of the offense as reasons for the above-Guidelines sentence. Given the district court's consideration of the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors and the court's explanation that it declined to exercise its discretion for the specific reasons explained at sentencing, the district court did not abuse its discretion in deferring to the state court and declining to order that the sentences be served concurrently. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Hall" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence after pleading guilty to criminal contempt of court after refusing to testify before a grand jury. The court concluded that the district court did not plainly err in calculating a base offense level of 20 for the underlying offense under section 2K2.1(a)(4)(A); the district court did not err in applying the section 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) specific offense characteristic for possession of a firearm in connection with "another felony offense" to the underlying offense; but the district court plainly erred in applying the section 2K2.1(b)(4)(A) specific offense characteristic for the stolen handgun to the underlying offense where the government did not prove that defendant knew or should have known that the handgun was stolen. Accordingly, the court vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Davis" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of possession of an unregistered firearm and possession of a stolen firearm. The court concluded that, while there was sufficient evidence to convict defendant of possession of an unregistered firearm, there was insufficient evidence to support defendant's conviction for possession of a stolen firearm where proof of scienter was not adequate. The court also found that, using the common-sense evaluation required by United States v. Barr, the Street Sweeper 12 gauge shotgun is quasi-suspect and defendant had no legitimate expectation that it was not subject to regulation. Therefore, the jury need not have found that defendant knew of the characteristics that bring it under the registration requirements of the National Firearms Act, Pub. L. 73-474, 48 Stat. 1236. The court did not abuse its discretion in refusing the jury instruction as proposed by defendant. However, when the characteristics of a weapon render it quasi-suspect, the government still must prove that defendant possessed the weapon and observed its characteristics. Because the adequacy of Instruction 16 was at least subject to reasonable dispute, there was no obvious error in the instruction. Finally, even if the district court erred in admitting evidence that officers were investigating defendant with respect to other criminal activity, the error was not clear or obvious. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part and reversed in part, remanding for further proceedings. View "United States v. White, Jr." on Justia Law

Defendant, convicted of first degree murder, appealed the denial of his habeas corpus petition. Defendant claimed that his counsel’s last-minute change of trial strategy and failure to allow him to testify violated his constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel. The state court concluded that, although counsel's performance was deficient, defendant was not prejudiced under Strickland v. Washington where defendant failed to show a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's error, the result of the proceeding would have been different. The court concluded that the state court did not unreasonably apply Strickland to the facts of defendants case. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "White v. Kelley" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the district court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence under Florida v. Jardines, and to strike a portion of the presentence report. In this case, the court concluded that the area immediately in front of defendant's door - where the dog sniff occurred - was also curtilage. The court concluded that the officer had no license to have the dog enter the curtilage and sniff the door. Therefore, the dog sniff violated Jardines, and the warrant application was not otherwise supported by probable cause. However, because the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies in this case, the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress the evidence from the search of the apartment. Furthermore, the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress the gun and drugs found on his person. Finally, the court rejected defendant's contention that the district court should have stricken the statements in the presentence report identifying him as a gang member where the district court did not use the statements in making its decision and did not violate due process. Accordingly, the court affirmed the conviction and sentence. View "United States v. Hopkins" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of failure to register as a sex offender and then appealed his 21-month sentence. The court rejected defendant's claim that the district court procedurally erred by failing to give an explanation for the sentence and that the sentence is substantively unreasonable. In this case, defendant waived, on the record and in response to the district court's inquiry, any argument that the district court's explanation of its sentence at the hearing was inadequate. Furthermore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing defendant where the record reflects that the district court considered the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors and determined that, particularly in light of defendant's previous violations of the registration requirement, the within-Guidelines sentence was appropriate. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Dieguez" on Justia Law