Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Law enforcement identified the defendant as a supplier of methamphetamine and fentanyl in a drug-trafficking conspiracy in Kansas City. After seizing three pounds of methamphetamine from a car en route to the defendant, DEA agents enlisted the driver to continue the delivery to the defendant. The defendant was arrested upon arrival to collect the drugs. During custody, the defendant made incriminating statements and consented to a search of his cell phone. He later moved to suppress these statements and the phone's contents.The United States District Court for the District of Kansas denied the suppression motions. The court ruled that the defendant's pre-Miranda statement about his cell phone number was admissible under the inevitable-discovery doctrine. It also found that the defendant voluntarily and knowingly waived his Miranda rights and that his post-Miranda statements were not coerced. The court concluded that the defendant's consent to the cell phone search was voluntary.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's decision, agreeing that the inevitable-discovery doctrine applied to the pre-Miranda statement. It found that the defendant voluntarily and knowingly waived his Miranda rights, and his statements were not coerced. The court also held that the defendant's consent to the cell phone search was voluntary. The Tenth Circuit concluded that the totality of the circumstances supported the district court's findings and affirmed the denial of suppression. View "United States v. Perez" on Justia Law

Wendy Johnson pleaded guilty to involuntary manslaughter after causing the death of Stephanie Heneha-Roubidoux in a drunk-driving accident. The government sought criminal restitution for Stephanie’s lost income, presenting testimony from an expert and Stephanie’s wife, Kristi Heneha-Roubidoux. Johnson argued for zero lost-income restitution, citing the government’s expert who stated Stephanie would have consumed all her income personally. The district court declined to deduct personal consumption from the restitution award.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma sentenced Johnson to 36 months in prison and three years of supervised release, without imposing a fine due to her lack of financial resources. The court ordered restitution of $158,009, based on the government’s reduced request of $208,009 minus a $50,000 insurance settlement received by Kristi. The court found Kristi’s testimony about Stephanie’s income credible and relied on it, despite the defense expert’s criticism of the government’s expert for not applying a personal-consumption deduction.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court concluded that the district court erred in rejecting the personal-consumption deduction for a legally incorrect reason, as household contributions do not fall within “lost income” under the Victim and Witness Protection Act (VWPA). The appellate court vacated the restitution award and remanded the case for the district court to reconsider the personal-consumption deduction and the payment schedule. The appellate court also addressed the sealing of certain documents, granting the parties' request to redact specific private information and keep the district court’s statement of reasons under seal. View "United States v. Johnson" on Justia Law

Pascual A. Ruiz Jr. was convicted after pleading guilty to one count of possession of ammunition by a prohibited person in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). In his plea agreement, the government promised to recommend a sentence at the low end of the applicable Guidelines range, which was 51 months. At sentencing, the prosecutor recommended 51 months but also discussed Ruiz’s criminal history. The district court relied on Ruiz’s criminal history to depart upward and imposed a 70-month sentence. Ruiz appealed, arguing the government breached the plea agreement by undermining its recommendation.The United States District Court for the District of Kansas accepted Ruiz’s guilty plea and calculated his offense level and criminal history, resulting in a Guidelines range of 51 to 63 months. The Presentence Investigation Report (PSR) suggested an upward departure might be warranted due to Ruiz’s extensive criminal history. At sentencing, the district court expressed concern about Ruiz’s criminal history and imposed a 70-month sentence, classifying it as an upward departure.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. Ruiz argued the government breached the plea agreement by emphasizing his criminal history at sentencing. The court assumed, without deciding, that a plain error occurred but found Ruiz failed to show a reasonable probability that the outcome would have been different absent the alleged breach. The court noted the district court’s independent concern about Ruiz’s criminal history, expressed before the prosecutor’s remarks, and concluded the district court would have likely imposed the same sentence regardless. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the 70-month sentence. View "United States v. Ruiz" on Justia Law

Defendant Alexander Pauler was convicted of possessing a firearm after having previously been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. The district court denied Defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment for failure to state an offense, holding that Defendant violated the applicable statute because he possessed a firearm in 2014 after having been convicted in 2009 of violating a Wichita, Kansas municipal domestic battery ordinance by punching his girlfriend. The sole issue for the Tenth Circuit's review was whether a misdemeanor violation of a municipal ordinance qualified as a “misdemeanor under . . . State . . . law” when viewed in the context of a statutory scheme that clearly and consistently differentiated between state and local governments and between state statutes and municipal ordinances. Applying well-established principles of statutory interpretation, the Tenth Circuit held that it did not, and the Court accordingly reversed and remanded for the district court to vacate Defendant’s federal conviction. View "United States v. Pauler" on Justia Law

The test applied in evaluating the constitutionality of a reasonable doubt jury instruction instruction is not whether a court finds it exemplary. Rather, the proper inquiry requires a court to consider the instructions in their entirety and ask whether a “reasonable likelihood” exists that the jury “understood the instructions to allow conviction based on proof insufficient to meet the [reasonable doubt] standard.” The Government charged Defendant Ishmael Petty with assaulting three employees at the federal correctional facility in Florence, Colorado. At Defendant’s trial, the district court tendered the jury a reasonable doubt instruction that tracked verbatim the Tenth Circuit’s Pattern Jury Instruction on reasonable doubt. The district court overruled Defendant’s objections to the instruction, and a jury found Defendant guilty. Defendant contended the district court’s instruction diluted the Government’s burden of proof contrary to his Fifth Amendment right to due process and his Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial. After review, the Tenth Circuit rejected Defendant’s argument that the reasonable doubt instruction as tendered was unconstitutional, and affirmed. View "United States v. Petty" on Justia Law

This appeal involved a criminal defendant’s obligation to pay restitution to his victims. Kapelle Simpson-El was convicted of crimes involving the sale of stolen cars. His sentence included a restitution obligation of $432,930.00. Since obtaining release, Simpson-El has paid at least 5% of his gross monthly income toward restitution. Simpson-El was injured while serving his prison sentence at a federal prison. The injury was allegedly exacerbated by inadequate medical attention and a lack of treatment, leading Simpson-El to sue the federal government under the Federal Tort Claims Act. After obtaining release from prison, Simpson-El settled with the government for $200,000. The government sought modification of the restitution order based on a material change in economic circumstances, requesting an order for Simpson-El to pay the entire $200,000 as restitution. The district court granted the motion in part, applying $145,640 of the settlement funds toward restitution. The Tenth Circuit found a restitution payment schedule could be modified when the defendant’s economic circumstances materially change. Simpson-El appealed, arguing the settlement funds were not a “material change in economic circumstances.” Finding no reversible error in the district court’s restitution order, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "United States v. Simpson-El" on Justia Law

A jury convicted Mark Ellis of five felony offenses and one misdemeanor offense involving child sexual assault on his adopted daughter, V.E. Child sexual assault allegations against Ellis first arose during his contentious divorce from V.E.’s mother. At trial, defense counsel Rowe Stayton argued that Ellis had been falsely accused: that V.E.’s vengeful mother was coaching her, and that V.E.’s sexual knowledge came only from admitted sexual abuse by her older brother. After he was convicted, Ellis moved for postconviction relief in Colorado state district court, alleging his counsel had been constitutionally ineffective for failing to interview and/or call to testify: (1) an expert forensic; and (2) several lay witnesses who could testify in particular about the Ellises’ family dynamics when the allegations arose. The state district court denied relief. The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed.Ellis never sought review of his ineffective-assistance claim with the Colorado Supreme Court. On appeal to the federal courts Ellis raised similar arguments raised at the state court level. His motion was granted, and the State appealed, arguing the federal district court erred in finding Ellis exhausted state remedies, and in granting habeas relief on Ellis’ ineffective assistance claim. The Tenth Circuit concluded that Ellis adequately exhausted his ineffective assistance claim, but the district court erred in granting him conditional habeas relief on that claim. Any question as to the propriety of the district court’s ninety-day retrial condition was effectively moot because the Tenth Circuit concluded that the district court should not have granted habeas relief in the first place. View "Ellis v. Raemisch" on Justia Law

Patrolling a high-crime area in Tulsa, Oklahoma, an officer saw a man riding a bicycle against traffic and not using a bicycle headlight, in violation of Tulsa’s traffic law. Unknown to the officer, the bicyclist was Phillip Morgan, who had a string of felony convictions: (1) unlawful possession of a firearm and ammunition, (2) accessory after the fact to first-degree murder, (3) unlawful possession of a controlled drug, and (4) unlawful possession with intent to distribute a controlled drug. After a lawful traffic stop, an officer has authority to order a driver and passengers from a car. The issue presented here was whether an officer has authority to order a person to step off his bicycle after a lawful traffic stop. Under the circumstances of this case, the Tenth Circuit held that the officer had that authority. View "United States v. Morgan" on Justia Law

The Tenth Circuit found that Terry Margheim failed to show an essential element of his malicious prosecution claim against deputy district attorney Emela Buljko to establish a constitutional violation. For that reason, the Tenth Circuit reversed and remanded with instructions to grant qualified immunity to Buljko. Margheim sued Buljko under 42 U.S.C. 1983 for malicious prosecution in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. This case arose from Margheim’s involvement in three state criminal matters - two domestic violence cases and a later drug case. His malicious prosecution claim was based on his prosecution in the drug case, but the three cases were tied together. When Buljko raised the qualified immunity defense in district court, Margheim had the burden to show a violation of clearly established federal law. (CA-D) Save Our Heritage Organization (McConnell) View "Margheim v. Buljko" on Justia Law

Defendant Gregory Jordan was sentenced to 168 months’ imprisonment pursuant to a Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C) agreement that proposed a base offense level of 31 and a Guidelines range of 135 to 168 months. The district court accepted the plea agreement, despite a discrepancy between the parties’ agreed-upon sentencing range and the range calculated by the district court. After both ranges were subsequently lowered by the Sentencing Commission, Jordan moved for a reduced sentence under section 3582(c)(2). The district court denied relief, concluding that Jordan’s sentence was not “based on” the Guidelines and he was thus ineligible for a sentence reduction. The Tenth Circuit held, to the contrary, that Jordan’s sentence was “based on” the Guidelines for purposes of section 3582(c)(2). Accordingly, he was eligible for relief. View "United States v. Jordan" on Justia Law