Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Michael Smith was charged with two counts of murder for the killings of Sarath Pulluru and Janet Moore. He was convicted and sentenced to death. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed his convictions on direct appeal and denied his two applications for postconviction relief. Smith sought a writ of habeas corpus in federal district court, arguing, as relevant here, that: (1) he was ineligible for the death penalty because he was intellectually disabled; (2) that the state trial court had erred in admitting Smith’s videotaped confession to the murders at trial; (3) that his trial counsel had rendered ineffective assistance in the presentation of his mitigation case; and (4) that cumulative error rendered his trial unfair. The district court denied habeas relief, and Smith appealed. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals granted Smith’s request for a certificate of appealability on these four issues, and affirmed the district court’s judgment. The Court found that Smith failed to demonstrate that the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals’ rejection of his claims was contrary to or involved an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law, and affirmed the district court’s denial of habeas relief. View "Smith v. Duckworth" on Justia Law

Jason Holland and his brother were accused of robbing a driver of her purse on a rural Oklahoma highway, and then unlawfully entering a home after their getaway car had a flat tire. At a joint trial, the state court allowed, as relevant here, two pieces of evidence to be introduced: (1) one of the victims’ statements that she saw Holland had Nazi tattoos on his arm, and (2) the other victim’s statement that she heard Holland’s brother confess to the robbery. The second victim thought she saw a black man in the back seat of Holland's car when the brother allegedly piped up saying “I did it. I did it. We don’t associate with black guys.” This evidence was admitted without objection and both brothers were convicted of the crimes. After his convictions became final on state direct review, Holland brought in federal court a petition for habeas relief. The district court granted relief on two grounds: (1) the introduction of the above evidence at trial deprived Holland of a fundamentally fair trial, and (2) Holland’s trial counsel’s failure to object to the evidence deprived him of constitutionally effective assistance of counsel. Applying the deferential standard of review contained in the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) to the holding of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (OCCA), the Tenth Circuit concluded that the OCCA did not unreasonably apply Supreme Court law in finding that the evidence at issue here did not substantially affect the outcome of the trial. View "Holland v. Allbaugh" on Justia Law

In consolidated cases, Defendants-Appellants Adan Molina, Fidencio Verdin-Garcia, and Miguel Romero appealed denials of their respective motions for sentence reduction. Defendants relied upon U.S.S.G. Amendments 782 & 788 which retroactively lowered the base offense levels for many drug quantities listed in the Sentencing Guidelines. On appeal, defendants sought reversal of these denials on the basis that the district courts erred by failing to address their material, nonfrivolous arguments. Finding no reversible error in either case, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "United States v. Verdin-Garcia" on Justia Law

Defendant-appellee Clifton Bennett pleaded guilty to federal child pornography charges and the district court sentenced him to fifty-seven months of imprisonment to be followed by several conditions of supervised release. Bennett and the government each contended the district court erred at sentencing: the government argued the court should have found Bennett had a prior Colorado conviction relating to child pornography, which would trigger a ten-year mandatory minimum sentence; Bennett challenged the imposition of special condition of supervised release that required he undergo mandatory testing for sexual attraction to minors. The Tenth Circuit agreed that Bennett’s prior Colorado misdemeanor conviction for sexual exploitation of a child "relates to" child pornography, and he was therefore eligible for the mandatory minimum. With regard to Bennett's challenge, the Court was "faced with too many speculative factors, too far in the future, to make a decision sounding in constitutional principles, so we dismiss Bennett’s cross-appeal without prejudice on ripeness grounds." View "United States v. Bennett" on Justia Law

In 1998, Juston Shaw was convicted in Texas state court on a charge of sexual assault. Roughly ten years later, he moved to Oklahoma. When he did, his sexual-assault conviction triggered application of the Oklahoma Sex Offenders Registration Act. Shaw challenged his registration obligation, arguing the Oklahoma Act constituted unconstitutional retroactive punishment. The district court disagreed, holding that the statute's retroactive application didn't amount to punishment. On appeal, the issue presented for the Tenth Circuit's review was whether Shaw’s restrictions on reporting, residency, and loitering constitute retroactive punishment in violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause. Responding in the negative, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court. View "Shaw v. Patton" on Justia Law

Brian Von Behren was serving a three-year term of supervised release stemming from a 2005 conviction for distribution of child pornography. One of the conditions of his release was modified to require that he successfully complete a sex offender treatment program, including a sexual history polygraph requiring him to answer questions regarding whether he had committed sexual crimes for which he was never charged. Von Behren contended that the polygraph condition violated his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. The district court disagreed and held that the polygraph exam questions did not pose a danger of incrimination in the constitutional sense. Von Behren refused to answer the sexual history questions, thereby requiring the treatment provider to expel him from the program and subjecting him to potential revocation of his supervised release for violating the condition of supervision. The Tenth Circuit reversed on the Fifth Amendment issue. View "United States v. Von Behren" on Justia Law

Petitioner-appellant Robert McCormick unsuccessfully petitioned for habeas relief from his conviction for child sexual abuse. He alleged the State of Oklahoma violated his due process rights when the prosecution suppressed evidence regarding the credentials of a witness who testified falsely that she was a certified sexual assault nurse examiner (SANE nurse) at the time of trial. After review of the district court's judgment, the Tenth Circuit concluded that, under the circumstances of this case, the SANE nurse was a member of the prosecution team. As such, the Court imputed her knowledge of her own lack of credentials to the prosecutor, who was obligated to disclose this impeachment evidence to the defense. Accordingly, the Court held the prosecution suppressed favorable, material evidence in violation of McCormick’s rights. The Court reversed the district court and granted McCormick’s petition for habeas relief. View "McCormick v. Parker" on Justia Law

Following the execution of a search warrant, Florentino Villanueva, Jr., was charged with one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm. The district court denied his motion to suppress the firearm seized during the search. Villanueva entered a conditional plea of guilty pursuant to a written plea agreement, reserving the right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress and any sentencing enhancement the district court might impose under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA). The district court overruled Villanueva’s objections at sentencing, classified him as an armed career criminal, and sentenced him to 210 months imprisonment. On appeal, Villanueva challenged the validity of the warrant on multiple theories. He argued: (1) that the warrant was not issued by a neutral and detached magistrate; (2) that the documents relied on for the search warrant failed to establish probable cause because there was no showing of a nexus between the items sought and the residence searched and the information relied on to establish probable cause was stale; and (3) that the warrant authorized a general search. Finding no problem with the warrant or error in the proceedings regarding Villanueva's conviction or sentence, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "United States v. Villanueva" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Archie Rachel was a state prisoner who was given 21 days to seek discovery, obtain and review responses that were not even due within the 21-day period, and respond to the defendants’ motion for dismissal or summary judgment. At all times pertinent to this case, Rachel had access to a prison law library for only a few hours per week. Given these circumstances, Rachel asked for additional time to respond to the defendants’ dispositive motion. The district court did not rule on the request for additional time; Rachel had no choice but to respond without the benefit of the requested discovery. The issue on appeal to the Tenth Circuit was reduced to whether the district court should have found good cause for an extension of time for Rachel's responsive pleading. The Court concluded the court should have granted an extension of time. View "Rachel v. Troutt" on Justia Law

Jamis Johnson was convicted of seven counts of mail fraud, nine counts of wire fraud, one count of conspiracy to commit mail fraud and wire fraud, and ten counts of money laundering. He appealed the denial of a motion for a new trial, challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, and alleged several instances of prosecutorial misconduct. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court. View "United States v. Johnson" on Justia Law