Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant appealed his sentence of 36 months in prison after pleading guilty to illegal reentry after deportation. The district court applied a sixteen-level sentencing enhancement under USSG 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) for reentering the United States after having been deported for a “crime of violence.” The court held that Florida’s inclusion of curtilage in its definition of dwelling makes its burglary of a dwelling offense non-generic. The court further concluded that the district court erred in applying the modified categorical approach to determine that defendant's Florida conviction for second degree burglary of a dwelling is a crime of violence. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Garcia-Martinez" on Justia Law

Defendant was found guilty of robbery, conspiracy to commit robbery, and using or carrying a firearm in relation to a crime of violence. On appeal, defendant challenges his convictions and total sentence of life imprisonment. Defendant argues that the district court erred by failing to dismiss his indictment pursuant to the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. 3161–3174. The court concluded that, given the Supreme Court's controlling decision in Zedner v. United States, in granting a one-year continuance, the district court failed to comply with the Speedy Trial Act. The Supreme Court found in Zedner that “the Act requires express findings,” and “without on-the-record findings, there can be no exclusion” of time past the 70-day requirement because the Speedy Trial Act, with “procedural strictness,” “demands on-the-record [ends-of-justice] findings.” Accordingly, the court concluded that the indictment must be dismissed. The court reversed and remanded for the district court to consider whether the dismissal should be with or without prejudice. View "United States v. Ammar" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of being a felon in possession of firearms and was sentenced to 288 months in prison. The district court determined that defendant was an armed career criminal under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e), because he had at least three prior Georgia burglary convictions, each of which qualified as a predicate “violent felony” under the enumerated crimes provision of the ACCA. The court concluded that defendant's state court indictments make clear that defendant's Georgia burglary convictions involved these three elements: (1) an unlawful entry (2) into a dwelling house or building (3) with intent to commit a crime therein. The court explained that these elements substantially conform to the generic definition of burglary. Therefore, the court concluded that defendant's prior Georgia burglary convictions qualify as violent felonies under the ACCA’s enumerated crimes clause. Because the district court did not err in sentencing defendant as an armed career criminal, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Gundy" on Justia Law

Defendants were charged and found guilty of several counts in an eight-count superseding indictment. The verdict forms that were given to the jury mistakenly listed one of the counts as “robbery” instead of “using a firearm during and in relation to [a robbery].” After the district court learned of the error, it gave the parties notice and amended the judgments under Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. However, defendants argue that the amendment was improper and that the original (erroneous) judgments should be reinstated, consistent with what the jurors found. Applying the district court's application of Rule 36 de novo, the court concluded that, consistent with its analysis in United States v. Diaz, the verdict form error was harmless on the facts of this case, and amending the judgments that were based on those verdict forms is the sort of clerical correction contemplated by Rule 36. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Davis" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm. The district court sentenced defendant under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e), in part, based on his two convictions for burglary under Florida law. The court concluded, and the government agrees, in light of the Supreme Court’s decisions in Johnson v. United States and Mathis v. United States, that defendant's burglary convictions cannot support such a sentence. As a categorical matter, a Florida burglary conviction is not a “violent felony” under the ACCA. Accordingly, the court vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing without the ACCA enhancement. View "United States v. Esprit" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his 180 month sentence after pleading guilty to three counts of being a felon in possession of a firearm. The district court sentenced defendant under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e), based on his prior convictions. The court concluded that defendant's prior convictions for Florida armed robbery categorically qualifies as a "violent felony" under the ACCA's elements clause. Accordingly, the court affirmed the sentence. View "United States v. Fritts" on Justia Law

After defendant was convicted of being a felon in possession, he filed a motion to dismiss his indictment under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. 3161 et seq. The district court reasoned that the nine-day period between April 21, 2014—when pretrial services and the government filed their petition seeking a warrant for defendant’s arrest—and April 29, 2014, was excludable as pretrial-motion delay and as advisement delay under 28 U.S.C. 3161(h)(1)(D), (H). The district court held that a six-day period from April 24 to 29 was automatically excludable as pretrial-motion delay. The court found that the nonexcludable event does not affect the timeout from the Speedy Trial Act clock required by the excludable event and denied defendant's challenge on this basis. The court likewise found no merit to defendant's other arguments on appeal. Accordingly, the court affirmed defendant's conviction. View "United States v. Hughes" on Justia Law

Petitioner was sentenced to death after being convicted of murdering his wife's daughters. At issue is whether, for purposes of federal habeas law, a Florida postconviction petition properly filed by a death-row prisoner claiming incompetency remains pending through the final resolution of the postconviction proceedings despite the state court’s having found the prisoner competent before the end of those proceedings. The court held that it does and concluded that the prisoner’s federal habeas petition was timely filed. In this case, petitioner's properly filed application was pending from March 13, 2006, through December 2, 2013, tolling the deadline during this period for petitioner to file his federal habeas petition. As a result, petitioner's federal petition, filed on January 21, 2014, was timely. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "Hernandez-Alberto v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, convicted of murder and sentenced to death, filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, challenging Alabama’s use of midazolam in its lethal injection protocol. The district court denied relief. The court concluded that substantial evidence supported the district court’s fact findings and, thus, plaintiff has shown no clear error in them. The court also concluded that plaintiff has shown no error in the district court’s conclusions of law, inter alia, that: (1) plaintiff failed to carry his burden to show compounded pentobarbital is a feasible, readily implemented, and available drug to the Alabama Department of Corrections for use in executions; (2) Alabama’s consciousness assessment protocol does not violate the Eighth Amendment or the Equal Protection Clause; and (3) plaintiff's belated firing-squad claim lacks merit. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Arthur v. Commissioner, AL DOC" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of four counts related to the murder of Erik Comesana, six counts related to a firearm trafficking scheme, and two counts related to possessing a firearm or ammunition while a fugitive from justice. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient for the jury to find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that defendant conspired with at least one other person to kill Erik; that he killed Erik to prevent Erik from communicating with law enforcement officers regarding defendant's firearm trafficking scheme; and that defendant carried, used, and discharged a firearm, thereby causing Erik’s death. The court also concluded that there was sufficient evidence to convict defendant of the the firearm trafficking offenses. Furthermore, the court concluded that any error in permitting lay opinion evidence does not warrant a new trial where defendant cannot show that correcting the error would have affected the jury's verdict. Finally, the court concluded that the district court did not commit an error under the Double Jeopardy clause. The court declined to review defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claim on direct appeal. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Campo" on Justia Law