Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff filed suit against the United States, alleging that the Government violated his Fifth Amendment due process rights by accusing him of a crime during the course of a criminal proceeding in which he was not named a defendant. The district court granted the Government's motion to dismiss. The court concluded that plaintiff's claim accrued when the Government purportedly accused him of criminal activity without indicting him. The court reasoned that to the extent that Doe's failure to initiate suit within the limitations period was the result of his mistaken belief that he could not file suit because his claim had not yet accrued, a mistake of this nature does not provide a valid basis for tolling. Therefore, the continuing violation doctrine was inapplicable here and the statute of limitations barred review of the statements made in 2008 as well as 2012. Finally, the court noted that amending the complaint would be futile. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Doe v. United States" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his 24 month sentence after pleading guilty to being found in the United States after a previous deportation. Defendant argued that the district court inappropriately imposed a sentencing enhancement pursuant to USSG 2L1.2(b)(1)(C), because his prior conviction for exporting defense articles on the United States Munitions List without a license was not a prior aggravated felony for the purposes of the Sentencing Guidelines. The court agreed and concluded that defendant's prior offense was not an aggravated felony under either the categorical or modified categorical approach. The court explained that defendant's criminal history does not support a basis for affirming the erroneous sentence. In this case, the court found that defendant's criminal history, which largely consists of arrests for which the underlying conduct was never charged or the charges were eventually dismissed does not trump the significant sentencing disparity caused by the district court's plain error. Accordingly, the court vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Guillen-Cruz" on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of murder and sentenced to death, sought a certificate of appealability (COA), challenging the district court's denial of habeas corpus relief. The court concluded that no reasonable jurist would debate whether petitioner's trial counsel's decision not to present evidence that he suffers from schizophrenia constituted ineffective assistance of trial counsel (IATC); whether his trial counsel's decision not to present evidence of his steroid use constituted IATC; whether he was eligible for the death penalty under Atkins v. Virginia, in light of his purported mental illness; and whether Texas's death-penalty statute unconstitutionally forbids juries from considering mitigating evidence. Therefore, the court denied the application for a COA. View "Rockwell v. Davis" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of possession of a firearm by a felon and possession of marijuana. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's denial of his motion to suppress. In this case, officers believed that defendant's obstructed registration sticker violated Louisiana Statutes Annotated 32:53(A)(3). The court explained that it need not determine the proper interpretation of Section 32:53, because Louisiana caselaw establishes that the officers' interpretation, even if mistaken, was objectively reasonable. Therefore, the court concluded that the officers had reasonable suspicion to justify the traffic stop. The court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Henry" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of attempted transfer of obscene material to a minor and was sentenced to 48 months in prison, as well as three years of supervised release. Defendant did not appeal, but moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) from the denial of his motion to modify conditions of supervised release under 18 U.S.C. 3583(e) and moved this court to modify certain conditions of his supervised release. The court explained that even if defendant's challenge to the special condition prohibiting him from possessing a computer or internet connection device without permission of the court were not premature, he failed to show that the district court abused its discretion in declining to modify the condition. In this case, defendant admitted in the district court that he posted an advertisement soliciting companionship on an internet site and that he emailed a photograph of his penis to a male who he thought was 15 years old. Accordingly, the court denied the IFP motion and dismissed the appeal. The court also denied defendant's motion to modify conditions of supervised release. View "United States v. Doyle" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that defendant used excessive force against him in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The district court granted summary judgment to defendant based on qualified immunity. The court held that plaintiff met his burden of rebutting defendant's qualified immunity defense. The court concluded that plaintiff alleged facts which, when viewed in the manner most favorable to him, would establish a violation of plaintiff's Fourth Amendment right to be free from excessive force during a seizure. The court also concluded that the constitutional right at issue was clearly established at the time of the incident, and that defendant's conduct was objectively unreasonable in light of then-existing clearly established law. In this case, defendant stopped plaintiff for a minor traffic offense and abruptly escalated to a takedown; plaintiff presented no immediate threat or flight of risk; and plaintiff offered, at most, passive resistance, including asking whether he was under arrest. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "Hanks v. Rogers" on Justia Law

After defendant was convicted of possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine and illegal reentry into the United States, he appealed his sentence. The court concluded that the district court did not clearly err by applying an enhancement for maintaining a premises for the purpose of drug distribution under USSG 2D1.1(b)(12). The court also concluded that the district court did not clearly err by applying an enhancement for defendant's aggravating role in the offense under USSG 3B1.1(c). Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Guzman-Reyes" on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death, appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment on his federal habeas claims. Petitioner claimed prosecutorial misconduct related to references at trial and during his penalty phase to a plea discussion proffer. The court affirmed the district court's analysis and holding that the TCCA's resolution of petitioner's allegation of prosecutorial misconduct was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law. The court held that any improper passing reference at trial to the proffer (or omissions in it) was harmless. The court also denied petitioner's request for a certificate of appealability as to his allegation of ineffective assistance of counsel. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Whitaker v. Davis" on Justia Law

Defendant plead guilty to possession with intent to distribute more than 50 grams of actual methamphetamine. On appeal, defendant argued that the Government breached the plea agreement when it recommended a role reduction but subsequently put on argument and supporting evidence that undermined that recommendation. In this case, the record indicated that the Government complied with its literal obligations under the plea agreement to make certain statements to the court. The court concluded that the Government does not breach a plea agreement by disclosing pertinent factual information to a sentencing court. Furthermore, the plea agreement did not contain any provisions restricting such disclosure. Because there was no error, the court dismissed the appeal. View "United States v. Casillas" on Justia Law

After defendant was convicted of illegal reentry, he received an 8-level enhancement for his sentence under USSG 2L1.2(b)(1)(C) for being previously deported after conviction for an aggravated felony. On appeal, defendant argued that Texas Penal Code 46.04 was substantively broader than 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1), and was therefore not an "aggravated felony" under the sentencing guidelines. The court concluded that, because defendant had not established a realistic probability that Texas courts would actually apply TPC 46.04 more broadly than section 922(g)(1), his argument that TPC 46.04 was not an aggravated felony for purposes of the sentencing guidelines failed. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Castillo-Rivera" on Justia Law