Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Kenneth Theis appeals his conviction and sentence for attempted sexual exploitation of a child. Theis used hidden cell phones to secretly record his girlfriend’s eleven-year-old daughter while she showered and used the toilet. He transferred the recordings to his computer and created still images, some of which focused on her genital and pubic area. As a result, Theis was indicted on two counts of attempted sexual exploitation of a child. Theis filed a motion to dismiss the indictment arguing the facts were insufficient to establish an offense under the applicable statute. He asserted that the statute required a causal, interactive relationship between the defendant and the minor, and that his conduct (which he contended amounted to mere voyeurism) was insufficient to establish a violation of the statute. The district court denied the motion. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "United States v. Theis" on Justia Law

Defendant Raymond Alcorta was charged with conspiracy to traffic methamphetamine with Javier Vega, Karmin Salazar, Adrienne Lopez, and Angela Lopez, who acted as drug couriers. They all lived in California; the drugs were delivered to Kansas City. Vega and Salazar pleaded guilty, while Defendant, Adrienne, and Angela proceeded to a joint trial in Kansas. All three were found guilty of conspiracy to distribute more than 500 grams of methamphetamine, and the couriers were also convicted of possessing methamphetamine with intent to distribute. After review, the Tenth Circuit reversed the convictions of Adrienne and Angela because the search of their vehicle violated the Fourth Amendment. But because Defendant had no standing to complain about that search and did not complain about it, the Court could consider on this appeal the evidence obtained in that search. Defendant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence and the admission of recorded jailhouse conversations of coconspirators. The Tenth Circuit concluded defendant’s conviction was supported by sufficient evidence, and his arguments challenging the admission of the conversations were unpersuasive. View "United States v. Alcorta" on Justia Law

Los Dahda was convicted of crimes growing out of an alleged marijuana distribution network centered in Kansas. The convictions resulted in a sentence of imprisonment and a fine of $16,985,250. On appeal, Los presented six challenges to the convictions and sentence. The Tenth Circuit rejected all but one: that the district court erred in imposing the monetary fine. The Court affirmed the conviction and 189-month sentence he received, but vacated the fine. View "United States v. Dahda" on Justia Law

Roosevelt Dahda and 42 others faced criminal charges involving the operation of a marijuana-distribution network centered in Kansas. Roosevelt was convicted on ten counts, and the district court sentenced him to 201 months’ imprisonment and ordered forfeiture in the amount of $16,985,250. On appeal, Roosevelt raised seven challenges to his convictions and sentence; the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected all but one challenge. Roosevelt argued the district court erred in setting Roosevelt’s base-offense level by miscalculating the amount of marijuana attributed to him. Based on these conclusions, the Court affirmed Roosevelt’s convictions but remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Dahda" on Justia Law

Defendant-appellant Robert Snyder pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm. The issue here was whether a prior conviction for voluntary manslaughter was a "crime of violence" as defined by section 4B1.2(a)(2) of the United States Sentencing Guidelines. Based on the Supreme Court’s decision in "Beckles v. United States," (No. 15-8544, 2017 WL 855781, at *6 (S. Ct. Mar. 6, 2017)), where the court rejected a vagueness challenge to the residual clause of section 4B1.2(a)(2), defendant conceded that voluntary manslaughter was a crime of violence, and the district court correctly applied the Guidelines in this case. View "United States v. Snyder" on Justia Law

Defendant-appellant Damion Tittle pled guilty to being a felon in possession of firearms. This crime carried a maximum sentence of 10 years, but the Government argued defendant's sentence should have been enhanced under the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”). The enhancement would apply for mandatory minimum term of 15 years when a defendant had “three previous convictions . . . for a violent felony or a serious drug offense, or both.” The district court concluded defendant had three qualifying offenses and sentenced him to a prison term of 188 months, more than 15 years. On appeal, defendant argued he was not subject to an ACCA-enhanced sentence because one of his three prior convictions was not a qualifying offense. After review, the Tenth Circuit agreed, vacated his sentence and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Titties" on Justia Law

Petitioner-appellant Keighton Budder was convicted by an Oklahoma jury of several violent nonhomicide crimes committed when he was sixteen years old. After sentence modification on direct appeal, he received three life sentences and an additional sentence of twenty years, all to run consecutively. He was not be eligible for parole under Oklahoma law until he served 131.75 years in prison. Budder filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, arguing his sentence violated the Eighth Amendment. In support, he cited “Graham v. Florida,” (560 U.S. 48 (2010)), which held that sentencing juvenile offenders who have not committed homicide crimes to life in prison without a meaningful opportunity for release was unconstitutional. The district court denied Budder’s petition, and he appeals. The Tenth Circuit reversed and remanded with instructions to grant Budder’s petition. The Court found under the categorical rule clearly established in “Graham,” Budder’s sentence violated the Eighth Amendment. “The [Oklahoma Supreme Court’s] judgment was contrary to this clearly established Supreme Court precedent. Accordingly, we reverse and remand with instructions to grant Budder’s petition for writ of habeas corpus, to vacate Budder’s sentence, and to direct the State of Oklahoma to resentence Budder within a reasonable period.” View "Budder v. Addison" on Justia Law

After his release from death row, Paris Powell sued the prosecutor responsible for his overturned conviction, Robert Miller. Powell alleged: Miller had suborned perjury from a key witness at his trial, Derrick Smith; had hidden from the defense evidence of Miller’s agreement to help Smith with his own criminal charges; and had failed to disclose the efforts Miller made on Smith’s behalf with regard to those charges. Miller filed a motion to dismiss. The district court granted the motion in part, but denied qualified immunity on certain claims. Miller did not appeal the ruling. Years later, Miller filed a motion to reconsider the denial of qualified immunity. The district court denied that motion as well. Miller then appealed the denial of his motion to reconsider. Because the Tenth Circuit lacked appellate jurisdiction over the district court’s order denying Miller’s motion to reconsider, it dismissed Miller’s appeal. View "Powell v. Miller" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Chetan Patel appealed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendants in this 42 U.S.C. 1983 federal civil rights case, in which Plaintiff raised numerous claims against various police officers and other governmental officials involved in his arrest on charges of felony VIN fraud and the related search and seizure of his property in Basin, Wyoming. In granting summary judgment, the court refused to consider a purported affidavit produced by Plaintiff’s counsel. The court also disregarded Plaintiff’s attorneys’ affidavits based on its conclusion that relying on the attorneys’ affidavits would make them material witnesses to this case in violation of Rule 3.7 of the Wyoming Rules of Professional Conduct. The court then concluded that the purported affidavit should have been disregarded both because it was irrelevant and because, without Plaintiff’s counsel’s affidavits, there was no admissible evidence that it was in fact signed by the person making the statement in the affidavit. After review, the Tenth Circuit reversed the grant of summary judgment as to the seizure of certain items and remanded for further proceedings on this claim. The Court affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of all Defendants on the remainder of Plaintiff’s federal claims, and affirmed the dismissal with prejudice of Plaintiff’s state law claims against Defendant Frentheway. The Court reversed and remanded for further proceedings dismissal of the state claims as to all other Defendants. View "Patel v. Hall" on Justia Law

Defendant Mark Wireman, a frequent sexual offender who pled guilty to counts of possessing and distributing child pornography, argued his sentence was procedurally unreasonable because the district court did not specifically address and reject his arguments for a downward variance from his within-Guidelines sentence. The question this case presented for the Tenth Circuit’s review was whether the particular argument he made to the district court—namely, that the Guideline under which he was sentenced was inherently flawed on policy grounds—warranted an exception to a long-held rule that the district court was not required to explicitly address and reject his arguments in such an instance. “But no matter how inherently fluid this area of law may be, we have held time and time again that a district court does not run astray of its duty to ‘consider[] the parties’ arguments’ simply because it does not directly address those arguments head-on—assuming, that is, that the district court imposes a within-Guidelines sentence.” Accordingly, the Court affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "United States v. Wireman" on Justia Law