Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant plead guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine. On appeal, defendant challenged his 240 month sentence, claiming that the sentence was imposed in error because the government did not file a proper information under 21 U.S.C. 851 to support his enhanced sentence. The court held that a defendant may waive section 851's requirements and the record established that defendant knowingly waived his right to appeal his sentence. Therefore, the court dismissed defendant's appeal. The court concluded that, even if it found that defendant had not knowingly waived his right to challenge his sentence, defendant has failed to meet his burden of establishing that the district court erred in imposing the sentence. View "United States v. DiFalco" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a citizen of Albania, seeks review of the BIA's order upholding the IJ's finding that his conviction for sale of a controlled substance, in violation of Florida Statute 893.13(1)(a)(1), constituted an aggravated felony and therefore rendered him removable under section 237(a)(2)(A)(iii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii). The court concluded that the BIA correctly upheld the IJ's determination that section 893.13(1)(a)(1) is divisible. Therefore, under the modified categorical approach, the court concluded that petitioner's Florida conviction qualifies as an "illicit trafficking" aggravated felony. The court thus denied the petition for review. View "Spaho v. U.S. Attorney General" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a District of Colombia offender currently serving a sentence in a federal Bureau of Prisons facility, appealed the denial of his 28 U.S.C. 2241 petition for habeas relief. At issue is Incident Report 1507668, in which petitioner was charged with making a threat against another person and failing to obey an order on August 30, 2006. Consequently, petitioner was sanctioned twenty-seven days of good-time credits. On appeal, petitioner argued that the district court erred by failing to hold an evidentiary hearing to determine whether he received the Incident Report or the DHO report and instead granting summary judgment on the basis that “some evidence” supported the fact that he did receive the reports. The court concluded that, under the circumstances, given the presence of a genuine dispute as to a material fact, it was error for the district court to take sides in this battle of affidavits and to grant summary judgment in favor of the Warden. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "Dean-Mitchell v. Warden" on Justia Law

Petitioner challenged his petition for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. 2254, appealing his Alabama convictions for trafficking in cocaine, failure to affix a tax stamp, and possession of drug paraphernalia. Petitioner argues that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to request that the jury be given a no-adverse-inference jury instruction, which would have told the jurors that they could not infer from his failure to testify that he was guilty. The court concluded that, in light of the overwhelming evidence of his guilt, petitioner has not carried his burden of showing that the jury inferred his guilt because of the lack of a no-adverse-inference instruction. The court also concluded that petitioner is not entitled to another evidentiary hearing where he failed to offer any justification for his failure during the evidentiary hearing held in the state collateral proceeding to develop whatever facts he thinks may be relevant to the prejudice issue. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Bester v. Warden" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of conspiring to traffic in stolen goods and to traffic in contraband cigarettes. The court concluded that the district court did not err in denying his motion to dismiss the superseding indictment as being untimely under the applicable statute of limitations; the district court did not err in denying his due-process challenge; defendant was not entitled to discovery on his misconduct claim and, in any event, defendant failed to show prejudice by the government’s failure to turn over any claimed information about any alleged benefits conferred on Phillip Morris; the evidence was sufficient to establish a conspiracy either to traffic in stolen goods or a conspiracy to traffic in contraband cigarettes; the district court did not err by denying defendant's request for a buyer-seller relationship instruction; and the district court committed harmless error by failing to enter a preliminary forfeiture order after the jury rendered its verdict and before the sentencing hearing. Accordingly, the court affirmed defendant's conviction for conspiracy and the district court's forfeiture order. View "United States v. Farias" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence of 292 months in prison after he pleaded guilty to three counts of enticement of a minor to engage in sexual activity under 18 U.S.C. 2422(b). The court concluded that the district court’s decision not to group Count One and Count Two of defendant's convictions was in accordance with USSG 3D1.2 because the conduct underlying each count caused a separate and distinct harm to the victim; the district court gave an adequate explanation for the within-guideline sentence it imposed; and the district court acted within its discretion by selecting a substantively reasonable sentence. In this case, the district court did not impose a sentence greater than necessary to comply with the statutory goals of sentencing. Therefore, because defendant's sentence is substantively and procedurally reasonable, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Nagel" on Justia Law

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