Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Edward Gibbs was indicted in August 2018 for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine mixture. He pleaded guilty in November 2020 and was sentenced to 200 months of imprisonment and 5 years of supervised release. Gibbs appealed the sentence, and the case was remanded for resentencing due to a sentencing error. Before resentencing, the United States Probation Office recommended twenty-one conditions of supervised release, including conditions "m" and "r."The United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Evansville Division, resentenced Gibbs to 180 months of imprisonment and 5 years of supervised release. During the resentencing hearing, Gibbs confirmed that he had reviewed the proposed conditions of supervision with his attorney and had no objections. He also waived a formal reading of the conditions. The district court entered an amended final judgment on September 1, 2023.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. Gibbs argued for the first time on appeal that two conditions of his supervised release were unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. The court determined that Gibbs had waived his objections to these conditions by affirmatively stating at the resentencing hearing that he had no objections and by waiving the formal reading of the conditions. The court held that this waiver precluded appellate review of his claims. Consequently, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "USA v Gibbs" on Justia Law

Brian Gustafson was convicted of wire fraud in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. He was employed as a manager at a Public Storage facility in Deerfield, Illinois, where he facilitated the theft of valuable items from a tenant's storage unit. Gustafson provided a key to John Garcia, who, along with Marilyn Rothschild, sold the stolen items. The stolen goods included antiques and artwork valued at $185,000. Garcia and Rothschild sold these items to buyers, receiving payments in cash and checks, which initiated interstate wire transfers.The district court sentenced Gustafson to twenty-four months in prison, followed by two years of supervised release, and ordered him to pay $330,237 in restitution. Gustafson filed motions for a judgment of acquittal and a new trial, arguing that he did not cause the interstate wire transmissions. The district court denied these motions, concluding that while Gustafson may not have known wire transmissions would occur, their use was reasonably foreseeable given the high value of the stolen items.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. Gustafson challenged the sufficiency of the evidence for his wire fraud conviction, prosecutorial misconduct during closing arguments, and the restitution order. The appellate court held that the use of wires was reasonably foreseeable due to the high value and volume of the stolen items and the involvement of geographically distant buyers. The court also found that the prosecutor's comments during closing arguments did not deprive Gustafson of a fair trial and that the restitution order did not violate his Sixth Amendment rights. Consequently, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment. View "USA v Brian Gustafson" on Justia Law

Ralph Thompson was sentenced to 150 months in prison for distributing heroin, fentanyl, and a fentanyl analogue. The district judge noted Thompson's nine prior felony convictions and lack of reform as justification for the lengthy sentence. Thompson did not dispute the list of convictions during sentencing but later argued on appeal that one of the nine convictions was invalid.The United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois sentenced Thompson as a career offender under the Sentencing Guidelines, which requires only two prior felony convictions for drug offenses or violent crimes. Thompson did not contest having enough qualifying convictions without the disputed one. The district judge did not indicate that the difference between eight and nine convictions influenced the sentencing decision. The 150-month sentence was below the guideline range of 188 to 235 months for a career offender with an offense level of 31.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. Thompson argued that his conviction for aggravated unlawful use of a weapon should be considered void based on the Illinois Supreme Court's decision in People v. Aguilar, which invalidated the statute under the Second Amendment. However, the court found that Thompson did not suffer prejudice from the consideration of this conviction, as his sentence would not have been different without it. The court also noted that federal law, as established in Custis v. United States, does not allow a defendant to challenge the validity of a prior conviction during federal sentencing unless it was obtained without counsel. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. View "USA v Thompson" on Justia Law

Kevin Pettis, a convicted felon, was found guilty by a jury of illegally possessing a firearm and was sentenced to 120 months in prison by District Judge Colin S. Bruce. Pettis later discovered that Judge Bruce had engaged in ex parte communications with the U.S. Attorney’s Office while his case was pending. Pettis filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate his sentence, arguing that Judge Bruce’s conduct demonstrated bias and that his counsel was ineffective.The case was reassigned to Chief District Judge Sara Darrow, who denied Pettis’s motion. Judge Darrow found that Pettis’s claims were untimely and that he did not present evidence of actual bias or extraordinary circumstances warranting equitable tolling. Pettis appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court first addressed the government’s argument that Pettis’s appeal was moot because he had been released from prison and was serving a new sentence for violating supervised release. The court found that the appeal was not moot because Pettis was still serving a term of supervised release, which is part of his sentence.On the merits, the court held that Pettis failed to demonstrate actual bias or a substantial risk of bias by Judge Bruce that would constitute a due process violation. The court also found that Pettis’s claim under the federal recusal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 455, was untimely and did not warrant equitable tolling. The court concluded that Pettis’s counsel’s mistakes did not constitute extraordinary circumstances justifying equitable tolling.The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment, denying Pettis’s motion to vacate his sentence. View "Pettis v USA" on Justia Law

Breion Woodson was convicted in Wisconsin state court on charges of firearm and drug possession and sentenced to 19 years in prison. During sentencing, the government presented a video from social media showing men with guns and drugs, which the judge used to assess Woodson's character and danger to the community. Woodson argued that he was misidentified in the video, but the judge denied his motion for a new sentencing hearing. The Wisconsin Court of Appeals affirmed, stating Woodson failed to prove he was not the man in the video.Woodson then filed a federal habeas corpus petition in the Eastern District of Wisconsin, introducing booking photos from the time of his sentencing that suggested he was not the man in the video. However, the district court ruled it could not consider the photos since they were not presented in state court and denied his petition, finding the state appellate court's decision reasonable based on the evidence it had.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court held that under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), habeas relief is unavailable unless the state court's decision was contrary to or an unreasonable application of federal law or based on an unreasonable determination of facts. The court found that Woodson's claim was not procedurally defaulted and that the actual innocence exception did not apply to his case. The court also ruled that it could not consider the new evidence (booking photos) under AEDPA's strict limitations. Consequently, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Woodson's habeas petition. View "Woodson v Mlodzik" on Justia Law

Michael Malinowski was sentenced to 150 months in prison followed by a lifetime of supervised release after pleading guilty to receiving child pornography. His release conditions included participating in sex-offender treatment, avoiding committing another crime, and not having deliberate contact with children. After moving to the Northern District of Illinois, Malinowski underwent a psychosexual assessment, leading to a recommendation that he refrain from accessing any pornography. A probation officer proposed modifying his supervised release conditions to include a prohibition on possessing or accessing any pornographic or sexually stimulating materials, which Malinowski accepted without a hearing.In 2022, Malinowski violated his supervised release by cashing a fraudulent check and failing to attend a therapy session. The district court did not revoke his release but warned him to comply with his conditions. A week later, Malinowski was found in a school with a child, violating his release conditions. The district court found him guilty of three violations and sentenced him to 12 months in prison, above the advisory range but below the statutory maximum. The court also modified his supervised release conditions, including a prohibition on possessing sexually stimulating materials and a condition barring children from entering his home.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed Malinowski's 12-month sentence, finding no procedural error. However, it vacated the two challenged supervised release conditions. The court found the condition barring possession of sexually stimulating materials to be overbroad and unconstitutional, requiring revision consistent with United States v. Adkins. The court also noted a conflict between the district court's oral pronouncement and written judgment regarding the condition barring children from entering Malinowski's home, requiring correction on remand. View "United States v Malinowski" on Justia Law

Kamala McCombs pleaded guilty to two counts of drug trafficking for her involvement in a conspiracy to transport methamphetamine from Arizona to Illinois. She was sentenced to concurrent terms of 121 months of imprisonment and 60 months of supervised release. McCombs appealed, arguing she deserved a mitigating role reduction under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines because one of her co-conspirators received such a reduction.The government indicted McCombs and her co-conspirators for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and possession with intent to distribute. McCombs pleaded guilty and stipulated to the conduct. The probation office calculated her offense level and recommended a two-level downward variance, resulting in a guidelines range of 121 to 151 months. McCombs objected to the probation office's determination that she was not entitled to a mitigating role reduction. The district court overruled her objection, finding she was not substantially less culpable than her co-conspirators, and sentenced her to 121 months.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. McCombs argued that the district court erred in not granting her a mitigating role reduction and that this resulted in an unwarranted sentencing disparity. The appellate court found that the district court correctly compared McCombs to her co-conspirators and concluded that her involvement was not substantially less than theirs. The court noted that McCombs's actions exceeded those of her co-conspirators, as she agreed to receive and transport drugs. The appellate court held that the district court's denial of the mitigating role reduction was not clearly erroneous and that the sentencing disparity was justified based on the record. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the sentence. View "USA v McCombs" on Justia Law

Jonathan Peoples pleaded guilty to felony possession of a controlled substance and was sentenced to one year of incarceration plus one year of mandatory supervised release. He received credit for time served, effectively completing his incarceration term. However, due to Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC) policies, he was detained at Cook County Jail for four additional days until he could be transferred to IDOC for processing and release.Peoples filed a Section 1983 claim against Cook County and Sheriff Thomas J. Dart, alleging that his detention beyond his sentence violated his constitutional rights. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, concluding that neither the Fourth nor the Fourteenth Amendments applied to Peoples's claim and that he failed to present a triable Eighth Amendment claim.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court determined that the Fourth Amendment did not apply to Peoples's post-conviction detention. Instead, the Eighth Amendment, which prohibits incarceration beyond the end of a sentence without penological justification, was applicable. The court found that the Cook County Sheriff's Office had a penological justification for detaining Peoples until IDOC could process him, as required by Illinois law and the court's commitment order.The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's decision, holding that Peoples failed to establish that the Sheriff acted with deliberate indifference, a necessary element for an Eighth Amendment violation. Consequently, without a constitutional injury, Peoples's Section 1983 claim could not succeed. View "Peoples v Cook County" on Justia Law

Police stopped Martin Devalois for a traffic violation. During the stop, a drug-sniffing dog alerted to narcotics in Devalois’s rental vehicle. Instead of complying with the police request to exit the car, Devalois initiated a high-speed chase that ended in a crash. Police searched the vehicle and found a small amount of marijuana and a gun. Devalois, a convicted felon, was charged with illegally possessing a firearm. He moved to suppress the gun, arguing that the police unconstitutionally prolonged the traffic stop to conduct the dog sniff. The district court denied his motion, and a jury found him guilty.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana held a suppression hearing where the court found the police officer’s testimony credible and determined that the officer did not extend the length of the stop. The district court denied Devalois’s motion to suppress the gun, and the jury subsequently found him guilty of the firearm charge. Devalois was sentenced to 92 months’ imprisonment and appealed the denial of his motion to suppress.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the district court’s factual finding that the officer did not prolong the traffic stop was not clearly erroneous. The court held that the officer’s actions during the stop were within the mission of the traffic stop and did not unlawfully extend its duration. The court also held that the dog sniff did not violate the Fourth Amendment as it was conducted while the officer was still diligently pursuing the stop’s mission. Consequently, the search of the vehicle and the seizure of the gun were lawful. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision denying Devalois’s motion to suppress the gun. View "United States v. Devalois" on Justia Law

The case involves Shamond Jenkins, who was convicted of robbing a Centier Bank branch in South Bend, Indiana, in December 2020. Jenkins was identified as a suspect in three robberies in northern Indiana between December 2020 and January 2021. During a traffic stop on January 8, 2021, Jenkins was found with cash, including a bait bill from the South Bend robbery, and was wearing red-and-white Air Jordan sneakers similar to those worn by the robber. Jenkins was charged with multiple counts, including the South Bend bank robbery, to which he pleaded not guilty.In the district court, Jenkins was found guilty of the South Bend bank robbery but not guilty of the Granger Centier Bank robbery. The jury could not reach a unanimous decision on the Check Into Cash robbery. Jenkins objected to the Presentence Investigation Report's recommendations, including an enhancement for obstructing justice by presenting false testimony and the inclusion of juvenile adjudications in his criminal history. The district court overruled these objections and sentenced Jenkins to 100 months in prison.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed Jenkins's appeal. Jenkins argued that the evidence was insufficient to convict him, that his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights were violated due to the face mask he had to wear during the trial, and that the district court erred in applying a sentencing enhancement for perjury and in counting his juvenile convictions. The Seventh Circuit found no error in the district court's decisions. The court held that the face mask did not render the in-court identifications unduly suggestive or violate Jenkins's confrontation rights. The court also upheld the sufficiency of the evidence and the sentencing decisions, affirming Jenkins's conviction and sentence. View "USA v Jenkins" on Justia Law