Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Manuel Lucero III, a convicted felon, pled guilty to one count of felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition. At his sentencing, the district court denied his motion for continuance and sentenced him to 120 months imprisonment, an upward variance from the Guideline range of 57–71 months. The court based this decision on various factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553, including the violent nature of Lucero’s offense and the need for adequate deterrence.Lucero appealed, arguing that his sentence was procedurally and substantively unreasonable and that the denial of his motion for continuance was improper. The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the district court had adequately explained the reasons for the sentencing enhancement, considering the § 3553(a) factors and the facts presented. The court also determined that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the continuance, as Lucero was not materially prejudiced by the denial.The Tenth Circuit held that the district court did not commit procedural error in explaining the upward variance, considering information in the presentence report, or relying on the officer’s testimony. The court also found that Lucero’s sentence was substantively reasonable, given his lengthy and violent criminal history and the need for deterrence. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for continuance, as the defense counsel lacked diligence, and the continuance was unlikely to have been helpful.The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment, upholding Lucero’s 120-month sentence. View "United States v. Lucero" on Justia Law

Tegan C. Gulley served a three-year term of supervised release after being convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm. Five days before his supervised release term expired, a petition to revoke his supervised release was filed, and a summons was issued. The district court delayed the revocation hearing for six months at Mr. Gulley’s request, during which he was ordered to remain on his already-expired term of supervision. Ultimately, the district court revoked his supervision and imposed a custodial sentence of 15 months.The United States District Court for the District of Kansas initially handled the case. The district court issued a summons before the expiration of Mr. Gulley’s supervised release term and set a revocation hearing for a month later. At the hearing, Mr. Gulley admitted to eight violations of his supervised release. The district court granted Mr. Gulley’s request to delay the revocation hearing for six months to allow him to demonstrate his compliance with the law. However, the district court unlawfully extended Mr. Gulley’s term of supervision during this period.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the revocation petition because the six-month delay was not “reasonably necessary” under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(i). The Tenth Circuit concluded that the district court unlawfully extended Mr. Gulley’s term of supervision, which had already expired, and therefore, the delay could not be deemed reasonably necessary. The Tenth Circuit vacated the judgment and remanded with instructions to release Mr. Gulley from custody. View "United States v. Gulley" on Justia Law

Joseph Gaye called 911 from his office, claiming he had been shot by a masked intruder. When officers arrived, they found no signs of forced entry or another person, but did find a bullet casing on Gaye's desk. Suspecting Gaye had shot himself, they obtained a search warrant and found a handgun in a locked drawer, with one bullet missing. The bullet removed from Gaye's leg at the hospital matched the handgun. Gaye, a felon, was indicted and convicted for being a felon in possession of a firearm. He appealed, seeking to suppress the evidence obtained from the search warrant and the bullet removed from his leg.The United States District Court for the District of Colorado denied Gaye's motion to suppress, finding the search warrant was adequately supported by probable cause and executed in good faith. The court also held that Gaye had consented to the removal of the bullet, thus relinquishing any privacy interest in it.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The Tenth Circuit held that the search warrant was sufficiently specific and executed in good faith. The court also found that Gaye had consented to the removal of the bullet, and thus, there was no Fourth Amendment violation. The court concluded that the evidence obtained from the search and the bullet were admissible, and Gaye's conviction was upheld. View "United States v. Gaye" on Justia Law

The case involves the suppression of DNA evidence obtained through a search warrant. The warrant affidavit included a false statement made by New Mexico Highlands University Police Chief Clarence Romero to FBI Agent Bryan Acee, who then included it in the affidavit. The district court suppressed the evidence, ruling that the inclusion of the false statement violated Franks v. Delaware, which prohibits recklessly or intentionally including a material, false statement in a search-warrant affidavit.The United States District Court for the District of New Mexico found that Chief Romero's false statement was material to the finding of probable cause and that it was made with reckless disregard for the truth. The court also rejected the Government's argument that Franks did not apply to Chief Romero because he was off duty and lacked an official investigatory role. The court held that Franks extends to off-duty officers who are actually involved in an investigation.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the district court's decision. The Tenth Circuit held that Franks applies to off-duty officers who are actually involved in an investigation with the knowledge and acquiescence of on-duty officers. The court reviewed the district court's finding for clear error and affirmed the decision, noting that Chief Romero's actions and the reliance of other officers on his information demonstrated his involvement in the investigation. Consequently, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's order suppressing the DNA evidence. View "United States v. Norton" on Justia Law

Anthony Brian Walker, a member of the Chickasaw Nation, was convicted of first-degree murder in Indian Country after an altercation with three teenagers in Ada, Oklahoma. On November 29, 2021, Walker was riding his bicycle when he encountered the teenagers in a red SUV. After a confrontation where Walker spat at the car and punched one of the teenagers, Jason Hubbard, Walker later approached the SUV with a knife and stabbed Hubbard, who subsequently died from the wound. Walker turned himself in the next day and admitted to the stabbing, claiming he acted because he believed Hubbard had a gun.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma presided over Walker's trial. Walker's defense included claims of self-defense and heat of passion. He requested jury instructions on these defenses, as well as on second-degree murder and voluntary manslaughter. The district court provided instructions on self-defense and the lesser-included offenses but did not include an instruction on imperfect self-defense, as Walker did not request it. The jury found Walker guilty of first-degree murder.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. Walker argued that the district court erred by not instructing the jury on imperfect self-defense and the government's burden to disprove it. The Tenth Circuit held that Walker did not preserve this argument because he never requested an imperfect self-defense instruction at trial. The court found no plain error in the district court's failure to sua sponte instruct the jury on imperfect self-defense, as it was not required to do so without a specific request. The Tenth Circuit affirmed Walker's conviction. View "United States v. Walker" on Justia Law

Christopher Kee was convicted of assault with a dangerous weapon in Indian country following an altercation with his then-girlfriend, Candace Chinchillas, in April 2020. The couple had a tumultuous relationship marked by excessive drinking and mutual accusations of abuse. Kee claimed that the stabbing incident was an act of self-defense, while Chinchillas described it as a violent attack. Kee was acquitted of three other counts of assault, which had more corroborative evidence, but was convicted on Count 2, which relied heavily on the conflicting testimonies of Kee and Chinchillas.The United States District Court for the District of New Mexico presided over Kee's trial. Kee did not object during the trial to the prosecution's use of his post-Miranda silence to impeach his testimony. After being convicted and sentenced, Kee filed a timely appeal, arguing that his due process rights were violated under Doyle v. Ohio, which prohibits the use of a defendant's post-Miranda silence for impeachment purposes.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed Kee's appeal. The court agreed with Kee that the prosecution's repeated references to his post-Miranda silence constituted a clear violation of Doyle. The court applied the plain error review standard, which requires showing that the error was plain, affected substantial rights, and seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. The court found that the Doyle violation affected Kee's substantial rights because the case hinged on the credibility of Kee and Chinchillas, and the improper impeachment could have influenced the jury's verdict.The Tenth Circuit vacated Kee's conviction and sentence and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "United States v. Kee" on Justia Law

Jimmy Lee Brooks was convicted by a jury of being a felon in possession of ammunition and witness tampering. The incident involved Brooks becoming irate at a beauty supply store, threatening his girlfriend S.J. with a knife, and subsequently shooting at a vehicle she was in, injuring her. Brooks was arrested after a search led police to his cousin's apartment, where he had expressed intent to kill S.J. and her family.The United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma sentenced Brooks to 235 months in prison, applying a cross-reference to the sentencing guidelines for attempted murder, which requires a finding of specific intent to kill. Brooks appealed, arguing that there was insufficient evidence to support the finding of specific intent to kill.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court noted that the district court had found by a preponderance of the evidence that Brooks shot at S.J. with the specific intent to kill her. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision, stating that the evidence, including surveillance footage and witness testimony, supported the finding that Brooks acted with specific intent to kill. The court emphasized that firing a gun at another person can support an inference of intent to kill and found that the district court did not err in applying the cross-reference for attempted murder. The Tenth Circuit thus affirmed Brooks' sentence. View "United States v. Brooks" on Justia Law

Defendant William Clayton Brown, while under the influence of methamphetamine, broke into a locked bathroom and fatally stabbed Damion Martin, who was embracing Brown's sister, Lacie Watson. Brown claimed he believed Martin was going to kill Watson. The Government charged Brown with First-Degree Murder in Indian Country. Brown requested jury instructions on defense of another and involuntary manslaughter, but the district court refused, citing insufficient evidence for the defense of another and omitting the involuntary manslaughter instruction without explanation.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma convicted Brown of first-degree murder. However, the court later granted Brown's Rule 29 motion for acquittal on the first-degree murder charge, finding insufficient evidence of premeditation, and entered a judgment of guilty for second-degree murder, sentencing Brown to life imprisonment followed by five years of supervised release.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the district court plainly erred by omitting the involuntary manslaughter instruction based on the theory of imperfect defense of another. The Tenth Circuit found that Brown presented sufficient evidence to warrant the instruction, as multiple witnesses testified that Brown believed Martin was going to harm Watson. The omission of this instruction affected Brown's substantial rights and the fairness of the judicial proceedings. Consequently, the Tenth Circuit reversed Brown's conviction and remanded the case for a new trial. View "United States v. Brown" on Justia Law

Coti D’Shayne Davis pled guilty to failing to register as a sex offender and was sentenced to 87 months’ imprisonment followed by 10 years of supervised release. In a prior appeal, the Tenth Circuit remanded the case to the district court for resentencing to allow Davis to allocute and to make specific findings concerning a special condition of supervised release. On remand, the district court allowed Davis to allocute, struck the special condition, but again imposed the same sentence.Davis appealed, challenging a two-point addition to his criminal history score based on a misdemeanor conviction for consumption of liquor by a minor. The district court had overruled Davis’s objection, construing it as an argument that the conviction should be considered a juvenile status offense and thus not counted in his criminal history score. The court concluded that the conviction did not fit the definition of a juvenile status offense because Davis was over 18 when it occurred.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that Davis’s underage drinking conviction, which he received at 20 years old, is “similar to” a juvenile status offense under the guidelines. The court reasoned that the elements of the offense and the conduct underlying the conviction were similar to a juvenile status offense, and that common sense dictated that the conviction should not be included in Davis’s criminal history score. The Tenth Circuit remanded the case to the district court with instructions to vacate Davis’s sentence and resentence him without the two-point addition. View "United States v. Davis" on Justia Law

Defendant Ted Joseph Valdez was involved in a conspiracy to transport two undocumented immigrants within the United States. After a car accident, he moved to Mexico and later accepted an offer to drive the immigrants for $1,000. He was followed by a border patrol agent for twenty-seven miles, during which he exhibited erratic driving behavior. Valdez confessed to knowing the immigrants were in the country illegally.Valdez pleaded guilty to the charge of conspiring to transport aliens in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii). The United States District Court for the District of New Mexico calculated his base offense level as 12, with reductions for his minor role and acceptance of responsibility, resulting in a total offense level of 8 and a criminal history category of II. This recommended a sentencing range of four to ten months. Valdez requested a time-served sentence of six months, while the government sought a high-end sentence. The district court sentenced Valdez to twenty-four months, citing the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and his criminal history.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court reiterated that the Sentencing Guidelines are advisory, not mandatory. The district court's decision to impose a sentence outside the Guidelines range was based on Valdez's criminal history, the need for deterrence, and public safety concerns. The Tenth Circuit found that the district court provided a thorough explanation for the upward variance, considering all relevant factors and justifying the sentence. The court affirmed the district court's decision, concluding that the sentence was substantively reasonable and within the bounds of permissible choice. View "United States v. Valdez" on Justia Law