Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

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

David Leroy Earls was convicted by a jury on three counts of engaging in a sex act with a person incapable of appraising the nature of the conduct, specifically the intellectually disabled daughter of his long-time girlfriend. Earls admitted to having sex with the victim, C.P., and the primary questions at trial were whether C.P. was incapable of appraising the nature of the conduct and whether Earls knew of her incapacity. The jury resolved both questions against Earls.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma sentenced Earls to 140 months in prison. Earls appealed, arguing insufficient evidence for the jury's findings and alleging trial errors. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the case. The court found sufficient evidence to support the jury's findings, including testimony about C.P.'s intellectual disability and mental illnesses, and Earls' own admissions. The court also found no abuse of discretion in the trial court's handling of expert testimony and rejected Earls' claims of prosecutorial misconduct during closing arguments.However, the Government conceded that the district court erred in calculating Earls' sentence by incorrectly adding two criminal history points. The Tenth Circuit affirmed Earls' convictions but remanded the case to the district court to vacate Earls' sentence and resentence him consistent with their opinion. View "United States v. Earls" on Justia Law

Cledale Caldwell pled guilty to failing to register as a sex offender, a federal offense that spanned 13 months. During this period, he was convicted and sentenced for two separate offenses in Oklahoma. At sentencing for the failure-to-register offense, the district court assessed criminal history points for the Oklahoma offenses. Caldwell objected, arguing that these offenses should be considered relevant conduct, which would result in a lower sentencing range under the United States Sentencing Guidelines. The district court disagreed, leading to this appeal.The United States District Court for the District of Kansas sentenced Caldwell under the 2023 Guidelines Manual. The court included Caldwell’s Oklahoma offenses in his criminal history, resulting in a total of 11 criminal history points and a Guidelines range of 21 to 27 months. Caldwell argued that the Oklahoma offenses should be treated as relevant conduct because they occurred during the commission of the SORNA offense, which would have reduced his criminal history points and the corresponding sentencing range.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that relevant conduct under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(1)(A) includes acts or omissions that occurred during the commission of the offense of conviction but must also relate to that offense. The court found that Caldwell’s Oklahoma offenses did not relate to his failure-to-register offense and were therefore correctly included in his criminal history. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision, maintaining Caldwell’s sentence of 21 months in prison. View "United States v. Caldwell" on Justia Law

In 2017, Raymond Lee Goldesberry's daughter, K.G., who was almost 12 years old, entered her parents' bedroom after a nightmare and climbed into bed next to her father, who was asleep. During the night, K.G. awoke to find her father touching her inappropriately. K.G. believed her father was asleep and mistook her for her mother. About four years later, the government prosecuted Goldesberry for aggravated sexual abuse of a minor under 12 in Indian Country.In October 2021, Goldesberry was charged in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma. He pleaded not guilty, and the case proceeded to a jury trial in March 2022. The jury found Goldesberry guilty, and the district court denied his motion for acquittal. Goldesberry was sentenced to 30 years' imprisonment, the mandatory minimum under 18 U.S.C. § 2241(c).The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. Goldesberry appealed on the grounds of insufficient evidence and prosecutorial misconduct. The Tenth Circuit focused on the sufficiency of the evidence, particularly the knowledge element of the charged offense. The court concluded that the evidence presented was insufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Goldesberry knowingly engaged in the sexual act, as the evidence equally supported the theory that the touching occurred by mistake.The Tenth Circuit vacated Goldesberry's conviction and remanded the case for further proceedings, holding that the government failed to prove the knowledge element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. View "United States v. Goldesberry" on Justia Law