Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Petitioner, guilty of 35 counts arising from his role in armed robberies of fast food restaurants, appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. 2254 petition for writ of habeas corpus. The court concluded that appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance in failing to argue that there was insufficient evidence to support defendant's kidnapping convictions in light of Garza v. State. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded with instructions for the district court to issue the writ. View "Overstreet v. Warden" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for eight counts of armed robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1951(a) and eight counts of carrying, using, and brandishing a weapon in violation of 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(1)(A)(ii). The district court sentenced defendant to 150 months for the section 1951(a) violations and to a mandatory 182 years for the section 924(c) violations, to run consecutively. The court concluded that, because defendant cannot demonstrate that he suffered compelling prejudice from the joinder of claims, the district court did not commit error, much less plain error, in denying his motion; the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant; and defendant's sentence for the section 924(c) violations does not violate the separation of powers, due process and equal protection, nor the Eighth Amendment. Accordingly, the court affirmed the conviction and sentence. View "United States v. Bowers" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence under the three-strikes statute pursuant to the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e). The district court counted defendant's two earlier South Carolina burglary convictions using the definition in the ACCA’s “enumerated clause,” which covers any “burglary” that is “punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.” The court concluded that the district court erred in doing so because the enumerated clause does not cover state burglary offenses whose elements are broader than the generic definition of burglary. In this case, South Carolina’s burglary offense is broader than generic burglary and does not divide into multiple, alternative offenses. Therefore, federal sentencing courts cannot know if someone convicted of South Carolina burglary was convicted of generic burglary. Accordingly, the court reversed the sentence. View "United States v. Lockett" on Justia Law

Petitioner filed a pro se application for authorization to file a second or successive 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his federal sentence. Petitioner's application relies in part on Johnson v. United States. The Supreme Court recently granted certiorari in Welch v. United States to decide whether Johnson announced a new substantive rule of constitutional law that applies retroactively to cases that are on collateral review. The court held petitioner's case in abeyance until the Supreme Court decides Welch because petitioner's petition raises the question that will be decided in Welch. Finally, the court agreed with its sister circuits and held that the 30-day timeframe specified by 28 U.S.C. 2244(b)(3)(D) is not mandatory. View "In re: Anthony Johnson" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction of five counts of filing false tax returns, three counts of using an unauthorized access device, and two counts of aggravated identity theft. The court rejected defendant's contention that the tax counts were improperly joined with the access device and identity theft counts under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 8(a) where defendant has not shown that he suffered actual prejudice from the joinder of the claims. Further, defendant has failed to show compelling prejudice and the court will not reverse for failure to sever under Rule 14(a). The court also rejected defendant's contention that two statements made by the government’s tax expert during his testimony violated his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent and also improperly shifted the government’s burden of proof. The court concluded that, taken in context, neither statement was an impermissible comment on defendant’s right to remain silent. Nor did the comments improperly shift the burden of proof. Finally, the court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant and his sentence was not procedurally unreasonable. The court affirmed the convictions and sentence. View "United States v. Zitron" on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm, appealed the district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. 2241 petition for lack of jurisdiction. The court agreed that the district court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the petition because petitioner failed to establish jurisdiction under the savings clause in section 2255(e). Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the petition. View "McCarthan v. Warden, FCC Coleman" on Justia Law

Appellant, an Alabama death row inmate convicted of rape, burglary, and murder, challenged the district court's denial of his emergency motion to stay execution. Appellant also filed an emergency motion for a stay of execution. The court affirmed the trial court's denial of his motion for a stay where appellant had not shown a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of his Eighth Amendment claim because: (1) he failed to show an available and feasible alternative method of execution, as required by controlling case law; and (2) he failed to show that he brought this claim within the applicable two-year statute of limitations. The district court determined that the balance of equities weighed against granting a stay because appellant unreasonably delayed bringing his lawsuit until it was too late to resolve the merits of his claim without staying his execution. The court denied the emergency motion to stay. View "Brooks v. Warden" on Justia Law

Defendant plead guilty to possession of a firearm as a convicted felon. The district court sentenced defendant to the mandatory minimum sentence of 180 months in prison pursuant to the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e). While defendant's appeal was pending, the Supreme Court invalidated the residual clause of the ACCA as unconstitutionally vague in Johnson v. United States. The government concedes that after Johnson, defendant’s prior convictions for fleeing or attempting to elude, under Fla. Stat. 316.1935, are no longer ACCA-qualifying offenses and cannot form the basis for a sentencing enhancement under the ACCA. The court agreed and concluded that the district court erred in sentencing defendant under the residual clause. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Adams" on Justia Law

Petitioner filed a pro se application seeking a second or successive 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his federal sentence. Petitioner was sentenced under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e), based in part on his prior Florida conviction for battery on a law enforcement officer. Petitioner's application relies on Johnson v. United States. However, the court recently held that Johnson has not been made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court and it cannot be the basis for a second or successive section 2255 motion. Further, petitioner's remaining claim, based on a 2010 case, Johnson v. United States, merely interprets the text of the ACCA and does not announce a new rule of constitutional law. Accordingly, the court denied the application. View "In re: Kendall Starks" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed from the district court's order denying his "Motion to Compel Compliance" with a plea agreement. The court concluded that there is no apparent jurisdictional basis for defendant's motion. Defendant brought his motion under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c), but that rule governs the procedures for negotiating plea agreements; it is not a grant of jurisdiction. Defendant's motion to compel was not an appeal from his earlier conviction, and even if it had been the district court is not an appellate court, so it had no appellate jurisdiction over the matter. Further, defendant cannot meet the requirements of a writ of mandamus. Accordingly, the court vacated the district court's judgment and remanded with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. View "United States v. Salmona" on Justia Law