Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Esquivel-Quintana was admitted to the U.S. as a lawful permanent resident in 2000. In 2009, he pleaded guilty to unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor in California. Esquivel-Quintana moved to Michigan. DHS initiated removal proceedings under 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii), which states that an alien can be removed if he is convicted of an aggravated felony such as “sexual abuse of a minor,” An immigration judge ruled that Esquivel-Quintana’s conviction under California Penal Code section 261.5(c) constituted “sexual abuse of a minor” and ordered him removed to Mexico. The BIA and Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding that the term “sexual abuse of a minor” was permissibly interpreted to include the conviction. The BIA employed a categorical approach and held that the age differential in California’s statute—which requires an age gap of more than three years— was meaningful. View "Esquivel-Quintana v. Lynch" on Justia Law

In 2011, Asakevich pleaded guilty to distributing child pornography and attempting to entice a minor via the internet, 18 U.S.C. 2422(b). The district court sentenced Asakevich to life in prison. The Sixth Circuit dismissed his appeal. The U.S. Supreme Court denied Asakevich’s petition for a writ of certiorari on October 7, 2013, so that Asakevich’s conviction became final. He had one year to file a motion to vacate his sentence, 28 U.S.C. 2255(f)(1). Asakevich has not filed a section 2255 motion. On October 6, 2014, Asakevich filed a pro se “Motion for Extension of Time to File 28 U.S.C. 2255 Motion,” seeking pre-approval for a 90-day extension. The district court denied Asakevich’s motion, reasoning that there was no published authority for enlarging the time for filing a section 2255 motion before the statute of limitations expires. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. Federal courts do not lightly grant relief in non-existent cases or offer advisory opinions about what they might do if an action were filed. Asakevich requested an advisory opinion about whether he could obtain an extension for an action not yet in existence and one that may never come into existence. View "United States v. Asakevich" on Justia Law

In 2005, Watkins was sentenced to 185-months’ imprisonment for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Watkins had three prior convictions: arson, felony escape, and voluntary manslaughter and was sentenced under the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. 924(e). After unsuccessful direct appeals and a post-conviction petition, which was rejected as untimely, Watkins sought authorization to file a second or successive habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. 2255, based on the Supreme Court’s 2015 ruling in Johnson v. United States, that imposition of an increased sentence under the ACCA residual clause violates due process because the residual clause is unconstitutionally vague. The Sixth Circuit granted the petition, stating that Johnson announced “a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable.” The residual clause defines the term “violent felony” to include a crime that “otherwise involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another.” View "In re: Watkins" on Justia Law

In 2008, Javidan shadowed Shahab, who was involved with fraudulent home-health agencies. Javidan, Shahab, and two others purchased Acure Home Care. Javidan managed Acure, signing Medicare applications and maintaining payroll. She had sole signature authority on Acure’s bank account and, was solely responsible for Medicare billing. Javidan illegally recruited patients by paying “kickbacks” to corrupt physicians and by using “marketers” to recruit patients by offering cash or prescription medications in exchange for Medicare numbers and signatures on blank Medicare forms. Javidan hired Meda as a physical therapist. Meda signed revisit notes for patients that he did not visit. He told Javidan which patients were not homebound and which demanded money for their Medicare information. The government charged both with health care fraud conspiracy (18 U.S.C. 1347) and conspiracy to receive kickbacks (18 U.S.C. 371). At trial, Javidan testified that she did not participate in and was generally unaware of Acure’s fraudulent business practices. Meda called no witnesses. Javidan and Meda were sentenced to terms of 65 and 46 months of imprisonment, respectively. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, rejecting Meda’s claims that his conviction violated the Double Jeopardy Clause and that he was subjected to prosecutorial vindictiveness for refusing to plead guilty and requesting a jury trial in prior case and Javidan’s claims of improper evidentiary rulings and sentence calculation errors. View "United States v. Javidan" on Justia Law

When Michigan police officers arrested Bachynski on suspicion of murder, she invoked her right to remain silent and asked for an attorney. During later interactions between the officers and Bachynski, she changed her mind, eventually pointing to a detective and saying: “I want to talk to you.” She then waived her Miranda rights three times and confessed three times to a slew of crimes, including murder. A jury convicted her, and the state courts upheld the conviction over challenges to her confession. The federal district court granted her petition for a writ of habeas corpus, holding that the detectives impermissibly interrogated her without an attorney present. The Sixth Circuit reversed, finding that the state courts reasonably construed the Supreme Court’s holdings in this area. Ample evidence rebutted showed that Bachynski voluntarily and knowingly waived her Miranda rights and there was ample, admissible evidence of her guilt even without the confession. View "Bachynski v. Stewart" on Justia Law

In 2006, Scarber was sentenced to life imprisonment; the Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed. The Michigan Supreme Court denied leave to appeal. On November 12, 2009, Scarber moved to dismiss the charges for lack of jurisdiction, which the court took as a post-conviction motion for relief and denied, The Court of Appeals affirmed. In March, 2011, the Michigan Supreme Court denied leave to appeal. In August, 2011, he filed an unsuccessful state habeas petition. The district court dismissed a federal petition as untimely. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding that the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act statute of limitations ran during periods when Scarber had the opportunity to, but did not, seek reconsideration. The limitation period began to run on March 20, 2009, after the 90 days when Scarber could have sought review of the merits judgment against him with the U.S. Supreme Court. It was tolled with 128 days remaining from November 12, 2009 (motion to dismiss filed) until March 8, 2011 (Michigan Supreme Court rejected appeal) and resumed running the day after the Michigan Supreme Court upheld denial of Scarber’s request to appeal. If Scarber had sought reconsideration, the limitation period would have been tolled because an application for state review would shave been pending. View "Scarber v. Palmer" on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of murder and felonious assault, filed a federal habeas petition and the district court denied relief. Then petitioner asked the state trial court to vacate his sentence because it failed to include mandatory post-release control. The state court complied and resentenced petitioner. After further challenges in state court failed, petitioner filed another federal habeas petition. The court subsequently granted a certificate of appealability on the five claims attacking the original convictions to determine if the claims should be considered second or successive claims. Magwood v. Patterson held that a petition challenging a new sentence imposed after a full resentencing and leading to a new judgment does not count as second or successive - even if the claimant previously filed petitions that challenged the original sentence and even if he raised or could have raised the same claims in those earlier petitions. In this case, the court held that a habeas petitioner, after a full resentencing and the new judgment that goes with it, may challenge his undisturbed conviction without triggering the “second or successive” requirements. Accordingly, the court reversed the determination that petitioner's conviction-related claims are second or successive and remanded the petition for further proceedings. View "King v. Morgan" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his convictions for two counts each of transporting explosives without a permit, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 842(a)(3)(A), and improper storage of explosives, and one count each of possessing explosives while under indictment and making a materially false statement to government officials. On appeal, defendant argued that 27 C.F.R. 555.205 authorized him to move his ammonium nitrate/fuel oil (ANFO) and that this regulation contradicts section 842(a)(3)(A). The court rejected defendant's argument, concluding that the statute is not void for vagueness; because the statute is clear, there is no reason to invoke the rule of lenity; and defendant fails to meet the elements of entrapment by estoppel. The court rejected defendant's Commerce Clause challenge, concluding that Congress's comprehensive regulation of explosives is permissible because the misuse of such material, especially when transported on highways, has a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Further, the court rejected defendant's claims of error to the jury instructions and defendant's remaining claims of error. Accordingly, the court affirmed the convictions. View "United States v. Lechner" on Justia Law

Around 2000, at age 44, Levenderis used castor beans and acetone to produce enought ricin to kill 250 people. Levenderis stored it in a can in his freezer until an FBI HAZMAT team removed it in 2011. Levenderis, then ill, told a friend (Coffman), who was watching Levendris’s house, that the can contained ricin. Coffman called the fire department. The FBI visited Levenderis at his nursing home. He described the substance as ant poison and stated that he had been joking about it being ricin. Later, Levendris visited the FBI office with his attorney, admitted that the substance was high-grade, weaponized ricin, and stated that he thought about using it in an elaborate suicide plan or to threaten his cousin or kill his step-father. The Sixth Circuit affirmed his conviction for possessing a biological toxin for use as a weapon, 18 U.S.C. 175(a), rejecting an argument that, in light of the Supreme Court’s 2014 decision in Bond v. United States, the federal prohibition on biological weapons does not apply to his allegedly “purely local” conduct. The court also affirmed his conviction for willfully and knowingly making a materially false statement to the FBI and upheld denial of his motion to suppress the statements made at the nursing home. View "United States v. Levenderis" on Justia Law

In September, 2010, Board pleaded guilty to drug trafficking with forfeiture specifications, a felony that carried a mandatory prison term of three-10 years under Ohio law. His plea agreement recommended a seven-year sentence. The court sentenced Board to seven years in prison. Board did not timely appeal his sentence. In June, 2011, Board filed a pro se notice of appeal and motion for leave to file a delayed appeal, asserting that both the court and counsel failed to inform him of his appellate rights. The Ohio Court of Appeals summarily denied Board’s motion. The Ohio Supreme Court declined to hear the case in December, 2011. Board sought relief under 28 U.S.C. 2254, arguing that he was denied due process and equal protection when the trial court failed to inform him of his appellate rights and his subsequent motion for leave to file a delayed appeal was denied, and ineffective assistance. The district court dismissed the petition as time-barred. The Sixth Circuit reversed and remanded. Board’s Ohio motion was a “properly filed” motion for collateral relief that tolled AEDPA’s statute of limitations from that date until December 21, 2011, when the Ohio Supreme Court dismissed Board’s appeal of the denial of his motion. View "Board v. Bradshaw" on Justia Law