Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Derek Ray Flaming was convicted of distribution and receipt of obscene visual representations of sexual abuse of children, aggravated sexual abuse, and attempting to cause a minor to engage in a sexual act by placing her in fear. The charges stemmed from incidents involving his minor stepdaughter, Jane Doe, in South Korea and Colorado. Flaming showed Doe child pornography, sexually assaulted her, and attempted to obtain oral sex from her. Evidence included Skype messages where Flaming threatened to assault Doe if his wife did not return home immediately.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma convicted Flaming on all counts. Flaming appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence and the district court’s evidentiary rulings. He argued that the government failed to prove he was not a South Korean national, that there was insufficient evidence he received child pornography, and that there was insufficient evidence he placed Doe in fear to engage in a sexual act. He also contended that the district court improperly limited cross-examination of Doe and erroneously admitted summaries of Skype chats.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that sufficient evidence supported the jury’s finding that Flaming was not a South Korean national, since the Department of Defense records and other evidence indicated he was solely a U.S. citizen. The court also found sufficient evidence that Flaming received child pornography, since the images were found on a computer he had access to, and his personal Skype account was used to send child pornographic images. Additionally, the court held that sufficient evidence supported the finding that Flaming placed Doe in fear, given his previous sexual abuse and the circumstances of the incident.The court rejected Flaming’s evidentiary challenges, ruling that the district court did not violate his Confrontation Clause rights or abuse its discretion in limiting cross-examination, since Flaming failed to lay a proper foundation for the alleged prior inconsistent statements. The court also upheld the admission of summaries of Skype chats, finding they were accurate and the underlying information was admissible and voluminous. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "U.S. v. Flaming" on Justia Law

Luis Gutierrez was arrested in May 2020 after New Mexico state officers found a loaded, stolen pistol in his motel room. He was charged with both federal and state crimes. In October 2021, he pleaded guilty to two counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon against a household member in state court and was sentenced to two years of imprisonment. He was released on May 5, 2022. Gutierrez was indicted for being a felon in possession of a firearm on August 11, 2020, while in state custody. However, he was not notified of the federal charge until his release from state custody.The United States District Court for the District of New Mexico denied Gutierrez’s motion to dismiss the indictment for violation of his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial. The court found that the delay in the federal case was justified due to complications caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and that Gutierrez failed to show any prejudice caused by the delay. Gutierrez then pleaded guilty to the federal charge, reserving the right to appeal the denial of his Sixth Amendment claim.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court applied the multi-factor test from Barker v. Wingo and found that while the length of the delay and Gutierrez’s assertion of his right favored him, the reason for the delay was neutral, and he failed to show any prejudice. The court held that the Speedy Trial clause does not apply to postconviction sentencing and that Gutierrez’s alleged harm at sentencing was not cognizable under the Sixth Amendment. The court affirmed the district court’s decision and found that Gutierrez’s appellate waiver was enforceable, barring his challenge to the application of U.S.S.G. § 5K2.6 to enhance his sentence. View "United States v. Gutierrez" on Justia Law

Gary Jordan, the defendant, pled guilty to armed bank robbery and other crimes, receiving a thirty-year prison sentence. After his plea, he discovered that prosecutors had recorded his attorney-client meetings before he entered his plea. Although the prosecutors claimed they did not watch the recordings, Jordan moved to vacate his guilty plea, arguing that the prosecutors' actions rendered his plea unconstitutionally unknowing and involuntary.The United States District Court for the District of Kansas denied Jordan's motion, stating that he could only challenge his guilty plea through an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, as the alleged unconstitutional conduct occurred before the plea. Jordan did not raise a claim of prejudice or ineffective assistance of counsel, relying solely on the structural-error theory from Shillinger v. Haworth. The district court concluded that Jordan could not prevail on this basis.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's decision, holding that under Tollett v. Henderson, a defendant who has pled guilty cannot raise independent claims of constitutional violations that occurred before the plea. Instead, the defendant must show that the plea was not knowing and voluntary due to ineffective assistance of counsel, unless the plea was induced by threats, misrepresentations, or improper prosecutorial promises. The court found that Jordan's challenge failed because he did not pursue an ineffective assistance of counsel claim and relied solely on the now-overruled structural-error rule from Shillinger. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Jordan's motion to vacate his guilty plea. View "United States v. Jordan" on Justia Law

The defendant was indicted on charges of conspiring to distribute methamphetamine and possessing methamphetamine with intent to distribute. He reached a plea agreement with the government to plead guilty to the conspiracy charge in exchange for the dismissal of the distribution charge. However, during the change-of-plea hearing, the defendant claimed he was only partially guilty and stated that he joined the conspiracy under duress. Consequently, the district court rejected his guilty plea. The defendant proceeded to trial and was convicted on both charges.The United States District Court for the District of Wyoming initially handled the case. After the defendant's guilty plea was rejected, the case went to trial, where a jury found him guilty of both conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute. The district court sentenced him to 188 months of imprisonment followed by five years of supervised release. The defendant appealed the district court's decision to reject his guilty plea.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The defendant argued that the district court erred in rejecting his guilty plea, asserting that his plea colloquy provided a sufficient factual basis for the plea and did not establish a duress defense. The Tenth Circuit assumed that there was a sufficient factual basis for the guilty plea but held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting the plea. The court noted that the district court had the discretion to reject a guilty plea when the defendant claims innocence, and it found no plain error in the district court's decision. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment. View "United States v. Romero" on Justia Law

Charles Warner was convicted in federal district court in New Mexico for being a felon in possession of a firearm and dealing in firearms without a license. Warner appealed his conviction on four grounds: he argued that he was not prohibited from owning firearms under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), that his suppression challenge regarding evidence seized at his house was improperly denied, that the evidence was insufficient to convict him of dealing in firearms without a license, and that the number of firearms in his possession was improperly counted.The United States District Court for the District of New Mexico denied Warner's pre-trial motion to dismiss the felon-in-possession charge and his motion to suppress evidence seized from his computers. At trial, Warner testified that he knew he was a convicted felon but did not know he was prohibited from possessing firearms under federal law. The jury convicted Warner on both counts. At sentencing, the district court applied a sentencing enhancement for possessing between 25 and 99 firearms, based on expert testimony, and sentenced Warner to 33 months' imprisonment.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that Warner is a "prohibited person" under § 922(g) because he has two prior state-law felony convictions for which he could have been sentenced to more than one year of imprisonment and has not had all of his civil rights restored. The court also rejected Warner's constitutional challenge to § 922(g), holding that it is foreclosed by recent Tenth Circuit precedent. The court found that any alleged error in the denial of Warner's suppression motion was harmless because none of the evidence Warner sought to suppress was used in the prosecution's case-in-chief. The court also held that the evidence was sufficient to convict Warner of dealing in firearms without a license and affirmed the district court's application of the sentencing enhancement for possessing between 25 and 99 firearms. Accordingly, the Tenth Circuit affirmed Warner's conviction and sentence. View "United States v. Warner" on Justia Law

Lance Maytubby was called to the police station by Officer T.J. White to answer questions regarding accusations of sexual abuse made by his nieces, R.L. and Z.L. During the interview, Officer White informed Maytubby that he was not under arrest and could leave at any time. The interview, which was recorded, took place in a non-coercive environment, and Officer White maintained a friendly tone. Despite initially denying the accusations, Maytubby eventually confessed after Officer White suggested that mitigating circumstances, such as Maytubby being a pastor and a family man, could be included in the report to the district attorney.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma held a pretrial suppression hearing where Officer White testified. The district court denied Maytubby's motion to suppress his confession, finding that the interrogation was not coercive and that Maytubby's statements were voluntary. The court noted factors such as the short duration of the interview, the non-coercive environment, and the absence of physical abuse or aggressive behavior by Officer White. A jury later convicted Maytubby on several counts of aggravated sexual abuse and abusive sexual contact, leading to a life sentence.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that Officer White's statements during the interview were not coercive and did not overbear Maytubby's will. The court found that the interview was conducted in a non-coercive manner, and Officer White's comments about including mitigating factors in the report were proper and did not imply control over sentencing. The court concluded that Maytubby's confession was voluntary and upheld the conviction. View "United States v. Maytubby" on Justia Law

Mr. Martin Lopez was convicted of carjacking and brandishing a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence. The incident involved Mr. Lopez, his girlfriend, and her friend. The government claimed Mr. Lopez attempted to take his girlfriend’s car against her will, leading to a confrontation. Mr. Lopez raised two main issues on appeal: the introduction of testimonial hearsay violating evidentiary rules and the Confrontation Clause, and improper closing arguments by the prosecution.The United States District Court for the District of New Mexico heard the case initially. During the trial, the government presented evidence including 911 call recordings, photos, and testimonies from lay witnesses and law enforcement officers. Mr. Lopez objected to parts of the officers' testimonies, arguing they implied hearsay from his girlfriend, who did not testify at trial. The district court overruled these objections.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the officers' testimonies did not clearly or obviously imply hearsay statements from Mr. Lopez’s girlfriend, as the testimonies were ambiguous and did not provide identifiable statements. The court also determined that the government’s closing arguments, which referenced threats against witnesses and their fears, were not plainly improper. The court noted that the statements were supported by evidence or reasonable inferences from the evidence presented at trial.The Tenth Circuit concluded that there were no reversible errors in the district court’s handling of the hearsay objections or the closing arguments. Consequently, the court affirmed Mr. Lopez’s conviction. View "United States v. Lopez" on Justia Law

A Mexican citizen, Ismael Vazquez-Garcia, was sentenced to 48 months for illegal reentry after being found by Border Patrol agents in New Mexico. He had previously been removed from the U.S. following a 2018 child-abuse conviction. At sentencing, the district court questioned him about the child-abuse conviction, which involved allegations of molestation. The court then imposed an 18-month upward variance from the recommended sentencing range of 24 to 30 months.The U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico had adopted the unobjected-to allegations in the presentence report (PSR) about the child-abuse offense and varied upwards based on his criminal history. Vazquez-Garcia appealed, arguing that his sentence was both procedurally and substantively unreasonable. He contended that the district court erred by relying on the PSR's allegations and by varying upwards based on his criminal history, which he claimed was already accounted for in the Guidelines range.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that Vazquez-Garcia had not shown his sentence was procedurally unreasonable because he did not object to the PSR's allegations, and the district court was permitted to adopt those unobjected-to facts. The court also found that the district court did not err by considering his criminal history for the upward variance. Additionally, the court ruled that the sentence was substantively reasonable, as the district court's focus on the child-abuse conviction was relevant to multiple sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's sentence, concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the 48-month sentence. View "United States v. Vazquez-Garcia" on Justia Law

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