Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Petitioner was convicted of conspiring to smuggle narcotics into the United States. Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief under 28 U.S.C. 2255 claiming that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance in failing to advise him of his right to testify on his own behalf. The district court denied the petition. The First Circuit remanded the case to the district court for an evidentiary hearing. After such a hearing, the district court again rejected the section 2255 petition. The First Circuit reversed and remanded with instructions to vacate Petitioner’s conviction and sentence, holding that the district court erred by not granting Petitioner’s section 2255 petition, as Petitioner received constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel at his criminal trial, and he was prejudiced as a result. View "Casiano-Jimenez v. United States" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to two conspiracies - conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute controlled substances within 1,000 feet of public housing and conspiracy to import controlled substances from the Dominican Republic. Defendant was sentenced to 288 months’ imprisonment for the conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute various controlled substances, concurrent with a sentence of 120 months’ imprisonment for the importation conspiracy. Defendant appealed, arguing that he received ineffective assistance of counsel during plea negotiations and that the district judge was required to recuse himself. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) Defendant received constitutionally effective assistance of counsel; and (2) the district court did not err when he denied Defendant’s motion to recuse. View "United States v. Torres-Estrada" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to two conspiracies - conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute controlled substances within 1,000 feet of public housing and conspiracy to import controlled substances from the Dominican Republic. Defendant was sentenced to 288 months’ imprisonment for the conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute various controlled substances, concurrent with a sentence of 120 months’ imprisonment for the importation conspiracy. Defendant appealed, arguing that he received ineffective assistance of counsel during plea negotiations and that the district judge was required to recuse himself. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) Defendant received constitutionally effective assistance of counsel; and (2) the district court did not err when he denied Defendant’s motion to recuse. View "United States v. Torres-Estrada" on Justia Law

Appellant was found to be in violation of the conditions of his supervised release. The guideline sentencing range for this offense was six to twelve months, but the district court sentenced Appellant to a sixty-month term of immurement - the statutory maximum for the supervised release violation. The district court failed to coherently explain its dramatic upward variance. The First Circuit vacated Appellant’s sixty-month sentence and remanded for resentencing, holding that the district court committed clear and obvious error by failing adequately to explain its sharp upward variance, and that error may well have affected Appellant’s substantial rights. View "United States v. Montero-Montero" on Justia Law

Defendant entered a conditional guilty plea to being a felon in possession of a firearm, reserving his right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress. Defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in failing to suppress (1) evidence obtained after a stop and frisk of Defendant; and (2) Defendant’s statement that he was “drug dealer” in answer to the booking officer’s question about his employment. The First Circuit affirmed the trial judge’s refusal to suppress the incriminating evidence and comment, holding (1) there was no constitutional violation in the stop and frisk of Defendant; and (2) the booking exception to Miranda applied to the employment question asked of Defendant. View "United States v. Sanchez" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of multiple crimes arising from his roles as the supplier to, part-owner of, and lessor of a drug-distribution network. The First Circuit reduced Appellant’s convictions to convictions for conspiracy and aiding and abetting the distribution of drugs, vacated his sentence, and remanded for resentencing. Upon resentencing, the district court sentenced Appellant at the top of, but within the guideline sentencing range, imposing a 151-month term of immurement on each count of conviction, to run concurrently. Appellant appealed, raising multiple claims of sentencing error. The First Circuit affirmed Appellant’s sentence, holding that Appellant’s claims were both unpreserved and unpersuasive. View "United States v. Sepulveda-Hernandez" on Justia Law

In a criminal prosecution in a New York district court, a federal grand jury indicted Appellant on drug-trafficking and money laundering charges. Appellant pleaded guilty to money laundering violations. The government, meanwhile, instituted a forfeiture action in the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico to litigate forfeiture issues related to the criminal charges. The government asserted that several parcels of real estate and Appellant’s interests in certain businesses were forfeitable but did not mention Appellant’s interest in a professional basketball team (the Franchise). The parties eventually reached a settlement, but the settlement agreement did not mention the Franchise. Years later, Appellant filed this motion for execution of judgment seeking compensation for the government’s alleged seizure of the franchise ancillary to the criminal case. The government alleged that it had never seized the franchise. The district court denied Appellant’s motion. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that Appellant failed to establish that the Franchise was seized. View "United States v. Rivera-Ortiz" on Justia Law

After a trial in 2003, Petitioner was convicted of rape in a Massachusetts state court. The Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) affirmed. In 2008, Petitioner sought a new trial claiming that his counsel on appeal had been ineffective for failing to argue that Petitioner’s speedy-trial rights had been violated. The superior court denied the motion, and the SJC affirmed. In 2013, Petitioner filed a petition for habeas corpus in federal district court, claiming that his Sixth Amendment rights to a speedy trial and effective assistance of counsel were violated during his trial. The district court denied the petition. The First Circuit affirmed, holding the SJC’s conclusion that Petitioner’s constitutional speedy-trial rights had not been violated and that Petitioner had not received ineffective assistance of counsel did not violate the standards of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. View "Butler v. Mitchell" on Justia Law

Defendant, an employee with the Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles (RMV), was convicted of two counts of mail fraud and one count of conspiracy to interfere with interstate commerce by threats or violence. The convictions arose from a scheme to sell RMV licenses to automotive service station owners in order to perform state-mandated vehicle inspections. The First Circuit affirmed Defendant’s convictions, holding (1) the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions; (2) the district court did not err by denying Defendant’s motion for a new trial; and (3) because there was no error in the district court’s rulings, Defendant’s argument that his convictions must be vacated pursuant to the doctrine of cumulative error cannot succeed. View "United States v. Gaw" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, fugitive James “Whitey” Bulger, the former head of an organized crime syndicate in Boston, was found guilty of racketeering, the murder of eleven individuals, multiple instances of extortion and money laundering, and narcotics distribution and conspiracy. Bulger was sentenced to life in prison. Bulger appealed, alleging that he was deprived of his right to a fair trial when the trial court and the government erred in various ways both prior to and during trial. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that Bulger received a fair trial and that none of the court’s or government’s alleged errors warranted reversal of Bulger’s conviction. View "United States v. Bulger" on Justia Law