Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant pleaded guilty to drug-related charges and then appealed his 60-month sentence. Defendant contends that the government breached the plea agreement by failing to recommend a reduction for acceptance of responsibility at sentencing. The court agreed and concluded that defendant was induced to plead guilty to all charges against him based, in part, on the promise that the government would recommend the reduction on his behalf. The government not only failed to recommend the reduction at sentencing, but also objected to and argued against defendant receiving the reduction based on facts it knew prior to offering the plea deal. Because this conduct constitutes a breach of the agreement entered into by the parties, the court vacated defendant's sentence and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Hunter" on Justia Law

Petitioner was convicted by a jury of three counts and he received prison sentences on Counts 1 and 2, but his sentence was suspended for Count 3. A Florida state court dismissed Count 3 from petitioner's judgment on the grounds that his convictions for Counts 1 and 3 violated double jeopardy. Petitioner subsequently filed a habeas petition, arguing that the state court’s 2013 dismissal of Count 3 created a “new judgment” under Magwood v. Patterson, thereby permitting him to avoid the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, 28 U.S.C. 2254, bar on second or successive habeas petitions. The court concluded that, because petitioner was never sentenced on Count 3, he has never been held in custody pursuant to Count 3. Accordingly, because the state court’s dismissal of Count 3 did not affect the judgment pursuant to which petitioner is in fact being held in custody, the dismissal did not create a new judgment under Magwood and the district court properly dismissed petitioner's habeas petition as second or successive. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the habeas petition as second or successive. View "Cox v. Secretary, FL DOC" on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of kidnapping his wife and murdering his sister-in-law, appealed the district court's denial of his petition for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. 2254. The court concluded that petitioner failed to show that the state court's conclusion that trial counsel's performance constituted anything but effective assistance under Strickland v. Washington was contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established law. The court also rejected petitioner's Atkins v. Virginia intellectual-disability claim where petitioner failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that his impaired behavior qualified him as intellectually disabled for purposes of Georgia’s death-penalty law. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Tharpe v. Warden" on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of first-degree murder, robbery, and grand theft, appealed the district court's denial of federal habeas relief. Petitioner argues that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to fully investigate and present mental-health mitigation evidence during the penalty phase of his trial. Petitioner also claims his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to contemporaneously object when he was shackled in view of the venire panel during jury selection and that the district court abused its discretion by denying him an evidentiary hearing on this claim. The court concluded that, considering the significant aggravators in this case, the limited mitigating value of a forensic psychologist's testimony, and the unfavorable evidence the psychologist's testimony would likely have brought in its wake, petitioner has not shown that the Florida Supreme Court’s determination that he was not prejudiced by counsel’s failure to present mental-health mitigation evidence was an unreasonable one. The court also concluded that, in light of petitioner's violent criminal past, the lack of provocation for the crime, the horrific suffering he inflicted on the victim, and the relatively weak mitigating evidence, even if the court reviewed the claim de novo and did not afford the Florida Supreme Court’s determination any deference, there is no reasonable probability that seeing petitioner in shackles during jury selection caused the jurors to vote for death when they otherwise would not have. Accordingly, the court affirmed the denial of habeas relief. View "Jones v. Secretary, FL DOC" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed her conviction of one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States and a separate count of conspiracy to commit health care fraud. Defendant's conviction stemmed from her involvement in a scheme to defraud Medicare. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant where she knew of and willfully joined the charged conspiracies; charging defendant with two separate conspiracy offenses did not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause where each conspiracy requires proof of a unique element not required by the other and each offense was thus textually distinct from the other; and the court rejected defendant's remaining claims of trial error. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Gonzalez" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction of being a felon in possession of a firearm and an armed career criminal. Police had discovered firearms while arresting defendant on a writ of bodily attachment. At issue is a question of first impression: Can the police arrest someone based solely on a civil writ of bodily attachment for unpaid child support?The court concluded that writ of bodily attachment are “Warrants” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, U.S. Const. Amend. IV, so the officer found the firearm during a valid search incident to arrest. The court also concluded that defendant's argument that he does not qualify for the 15-year mandatory minimum under the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. 924(e), are both waived and foreclosed by precedent. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Phillips" on Justia Law

Defendants Farha, Behrens, Kale, and Clay appeal their convictions for charges related to Medicaid fraud on multiple grounds. Defendants were all high-level executives of WellCare or one of its Florida subsidiaries, Staywell and HealthEase. At trial, the government proved that together defendants participated in a fraudulent scheme to file false Medicaid expense reports that misrepresented and overstated the amounts Staywell and HealthEase spent on medical services for Medicaid patients, specifically outpatient behavioral health care services. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to convict Farha, Behrens, and Kale for health care fraud; there was sufficient evidence to convict Behrens for making false representations to AHCA; and there was sufficient evidence to convict Clay for making false statements to federal agents. The court rejected Farha, Behrens, and Kale's challenge to the jury instructions with regard to their fraud convictions. Finally, the court rejected defendants' claims of evidentiary error. Accordingly, the court affirmed the convictions. View "United States v. Clay" on Justia Law

Petitioner seeks authorization to file a 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion based on Johnson v. United States. Petitioner was sentenced under 18 U.S.C. 924(c), which requires a longer prison sentence whenever a defendant uses a firearm during a crime of violence or drug trafficking crime. Petitioner contends that the residual clause of section 924(c) is unconstitutional in light of Johnson. The court recently ruled that Johnson's holding may invalidate the "very similar" section 924(c)(3)(B) residual clause. The court recognized, at the same time, that the law is unsettled on this question and left it to the district court to decide in the first instance what effect Johnson had on section 924(c)'s residual clause. The court concluded that when petitioner's section 2255 motion is filed in the district court, the district court should hear from the parties and apply the law to the facts as it thinks best. Accordingly, the court granted the petition. View "In Re: Devon Chance" on Justia Law

Petitioner filed an application seeking an order authorizing the district court to consider a second or successive motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his federal sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255(h) and 2244(b)(3)(A). Petitioner asserts that his sentence, enhanced as a career offender under the residual clause of the Sentencing Guidelines, violates due process. Petitioner argued that his prior conviction for third-degree escape is no longer a predicate offense under the Guidelines because the residual clause is invalid in light of Johnson v. United States. The court held that section 2244(b)(1)'s mandate applies to applications for leave to file a second or successive section 2255 motion. The court also held that a prisoner may not file "what amounts to a motion for reconsideration under the guise of a separate and purportedly 'new' application" when the new application raises the same claim that was raised and rejected in the prior application. In this case, the court rejected petitioner's application because the claim in his instant application was raised and rejected on the merits in a prior application. Accordingly, the court denied the application. View "In re: Kiwanis Jones" on Justia Law

Petitioner filed an application seeking an order authorizing the district court to consider a second or successive motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his federal sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255(h) and 2244(b)(3)(A). As an initial matter, the court denied In re Bradford's counseled motion to hold this counseled application in abeyance due to the grant of certiorari in Beckles v. United States. The court may also not consider petitioner's present Johnson v. United States claim for the simple reason that he raised that claim in his first application for certification, and section 2244 bars the court from considering claims that were raised on prior applications. Accordingly, the court dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction and denied petitioner's motion to hold the application in abeyance. View "In Re: Brad Bradley Bradford" on Justia Law