Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

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

Defendant was convicted of conspiring to possess and possessing with the intent to distribute marijuana and heroin. On appeal, defendant argued that the district court erroneously failed to suppress incriminating evidence that government agents obtained from an allegedly unconstitutional stop and ultimate arrest. The court held that much of the agents' conduct was reasonable and thus constitutional. However, the court held that the district court erred by admitting evidence obtained from an unconstitutional, post-arrest search of a cell phone in defendant's possession. The court found that defendant voluntarily consented to a search of the phone in his possession during the lawful vehicle stop. The court explained that the DEA agent's post-arrest manual search of the phone at the Border Patrol station was a distinct search requiring independent justification. Because the error was harmless, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Escamilla, Jr." on Justia Law

Six defendants appealed their convictions for Medicare fraud, as well as paying and receiving kickbacks for referrals. Defendants' scheme involved fraudulently billing Medicare for services provided at a community mental health center. The court concluded that the district court did not err in declining to suppress the evidence seized pursuant to the warrant; the indictment does not present any reversible error; the court rejected claims of evidentiary errors; the court rejected claims of error regarding the jury instructions; the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant of conspiracy to commit health care fraud and substantive health care fraud, as well as the kickback counts; there was no Eighth Amendment problem with the forfeiture order; and the court agreed with the government that the district court erred by deciding to offset defendants' restitution obligations with any amount collected pursuant to the forfeiture order. Accordingly, the court modified the restitution and forfeiture orders to eliminate the offset. The court affirmed the judgment in all other respects. View "United States v. Sanjar" on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of two murders and sentenced to death, sought a certificate of appealability (COA) on five claims for habeas relief. The court denied a COA on petitioner's claim that the convicting court unconstitutionally prevented him from informing the jurors about the parole implications of a life sentence, because this claim was foreclosed by circuit precedent. The court also denied a COA on his claim that his trial counsel provided constitutionally ineffective assistance by failing to object to (a) comments by the prosecutor supposedly implicating petitioner's right not to testify and (b) the guilt/innocence-phase discussion of petitioner's extraneous offenses. The court explained that petitioner failed to present a colorable argument that the state court's finding defense counsel’s trial strategy reasonable was unreasonable. The court granted a COA on petitioner's claims that the convicting court unconstitutionally prevented him from presenting mitigating childhood photographs of himself to the jury during the sentencing phase; that the convicting court unconstitutionally permitted the jury to hear testimony about the possibility of release on furlough for capital defendants sentenced to life in prison; and that the State violated Batson v. Kentucky when it exercised racially motivated peremptory strikes against two prospective jurors. View "Rhoades v. Davis" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his 300 month sentence after pleading guilty to attempting to use a means of interstate commerce to persuade, induce, entice, or coerce a minor to engage in sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense. The court agreed with defendant's argument that the Government breached the plea agreement by failing to comply with its obligations and to recommend a low-end sentence, instead of recommending and arguing for a high-end sentence. The court concluded that the breach constituted reversible plain error because the error had a serious effect on the fairness, integrity, or pubic reputation of judicial proceedings. Accordingly, the court vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Kirkland" on Justia Law

After Lesa Ann Surratt died as a result of complications of asphyxia due to airway obstruction by a plastic bag, her sister filed suit against defendants for excessive force, unreasonable search and seizure, violation of due process, and conspiracy, as well as Texas state-law claims for wrongful death, assault and battery, and breach of fiduciary duty. Officers had pulled over Surratt for a traffic violation and when they noticed that she put something into her mouth, they attempted to remove it. Surratt was unresponsive and having a seizure by the time the officers were able to remove her from the car. An ambulance was called and the plastic baggie was removed from her throat with forceps. Surratt died thirteen days later. The district court partially granted defendants' motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. The court concluded, assuming without deciding that the officers' conduct violated Surratt's constitutional rights, plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the officers acted objectively unreasonabe in light of clearly established law at the time of the incident. In this case, no previous law has provided guidance regarding what was precisely reasonable and what was unreasonable regarding the use of force to an individual's throat where the individual appeared to be concealing something in their mouth. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Surratt v. McClarin" on Justia Law

Defendant Abraham Fisch, a criminal defense attorney, was convicted of conspiracy, obstruction of justice, money laundering, and tax evasion. Defendant and Lloyd Williams, a former FBI informant, would approach defendants who had criminal charges pending against them and told the defendants to pay them large sums of money as purported legal fees. Fisch and Williams promised to use the money to pay off federal officials but, in actuality, had no such government contacts. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant of the offenses; Fisch failed to make out a Fifth Amendment violation based on the denial of a hearing regarding the lis pendens on his home; Fisch failed to establish a Sixth Amendment violation by the government's seeking a lis pendens on his home as an asset traceable to his criminal proceeds; Fisch failed to make the requisite showing of prosecutorial misconduct; the court rejected Fisch's challenges to the jury instructions; and the court rejected Fisch's challenges to the district court's post-trial forfeiture orders. The court declined to address Fisch's ineffective assistance of counsel claims on direct appeal. Accordingly, the court affirmed as to all issues except the denial of Fisch's ineffective assistance of counsel claims. View "United States v. Fisch" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence and conviction for filing false liens or encumbrances. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant where a jury could conclude from the filings at issue that defendant was attempting to file false liens or encumbrances; the district court did not abuse its discretion by answering a jury note where, among other things, responding would have conflicted with the jury instructions; and the district court did not err by adding a six-level enhancement under USSG 2A6.1(b)(1) for threatening or harassing communications where there was evidence that defendant threatened to file liens. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Jordan" on Justia Law