Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

In 2004, Michael Harris pleaded guilty to possessing a firearm as a convicted felon. The maximum sentence for a felon-in-possession conviction is typically ten years. But because the sentencing court found Harris had three qualifying "violent felonies" or "serious drug offenses," as defined by the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), the court applied the section 924(e)(1) enhancement and sentenced Harris to the fifteen-year mandatory minimum. Harris moved to vacate his sentence due to a change in the law, particularly with regard to what then constituted a "violent felony." Statutory robbery was a "violent felony" under the ACCA. But the Tenth Circuit found that eleven circuit-level decisions reached varying results on the narrow question of whether robbery was considered a "violent felony." In examining various state statutes, five courts found no violent felony and six found a violent felony. Upon independent examination of the Colorado robbery statute here, however, the Tenth Circuit believed Colorado robbery qualified as a violent felony. "Although requiring more analysis than needed at first blush, we, in the end, return to the obvious: Statutory robbery in Colorado is a violent felony under the ACCA" because it had as an element the use or threatened use of "physical force" against another person that is capable of causing physical pain or injury. Accordingly, the Court affirmed Harris' sentence. View "United States v. Harris" on Justia Law

The property at issue here was a backpack owned by defendant-appellant Nicolas Juszczyk, who was repairing his motorcycle in the backyard of Tina Giger. A concerned neighbor contacted police, who came to investigate. When they did, Juszczyk threw the backpack onto Giger's roof, where the backpack was later retrieved by police and searched. Methamphetamine, a firearm, and documents bearing Juszczyk's name were found inside. The issue this case presented for the Tenth Circuit's review was whether Juszczyk lacked an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy after throwing his backpack onto the roof. The Court concluded that any expectation of privacy was not objectively reasonable; as a result, Juszczyk abandoned the backpack and the search was lawful. View "United States v. Juszczyk" on Justia Law

Defendant Jasonn Gonzales pleaded guilty to four counts of mail fraud, one count of conspiracy to commit mail fraud, and one count of aggravated identity theft, arising out of a scheme to obtain unemployment benefits from three state agencies. On appeal his sole argument was that the district court erred in calculating his sentencing-guidelines offense level by including as victims those persons whose identities had been stolen even though they suffered no financial loss. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the sentence. View "United States v. Gonzales" on Justia Law

Defendant Tommy Taylor was convicted by a jury of being a felon in possession of a firearm, for which he was sentenced to 110 months’ imprisonment. On direct appeal, the Tenth Circuit remanded for resentencing because Taylor’s sentence was based in part on the application of the residual clause of U.S.S.G. 4B1.2(a)(2), which had been held to be unconstitutionally vague. On remand, the district court sentenced Taylor to a term of imprisonment of 87 months. Taylor again appealed, arguing that the district court incorrectly calculated his base and total offense levels by improperly treating a prior state conviction as a “crime of violence” pursuant to U.S.S.G. sections 4B1.2(a)(1) and 2K2.1(a)(4)(A). After review, the Tenth Circuit rejected Taylor’s arguments and affirmed his sentence. View "United States v. Taylor" on Justia Law

While incarcerated at the Topeka Correctional Facility (TCF - an all-female state prison), Plaintiff-Appellant Tracy Keith was raped by a prison maintenance employee. Plaintiff filed a section 1983 suit alleging that prison officials, including Warden Richard Koerner, violated her Eighth Amendment rights by creating an environment in which sexual misconduct was likely to occur. The Warden defended primarily on qualified immunity grounds. The district court granted summary judgment to Warden Koerner on qualified immunity. Plaintiff appealed. After review, the Tenth Circuit found that a reasonable jury could have concluded that Warden Koerner created an atmosphere where “policies were honored only in the breach, and, as a result, he failed to take reasonable measures to ensure inmates were safe from the risk of sexual misconduct by TCF employees.” Because plaintiff possessed “a clearly established constitutional right” and presented evidence of a constitutional violation by Warden Koerner, the Tenth Circuit concluded summary judgment was inappropriate on qualified-immunity grounds. The Court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Keith v. Koerner" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-appellee James Durkee sued defendants Sheriff John Minor, Sheriff, and Sergeant Ron Hochmuth, both of Summit County Sheriff’s Department, in their individual capacities. Plaintiff argued defendants violated his Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment when he was attacked by Ricky Michael Ray Ramos, a fellow inmate, at the Summit County Detention Center. In a written order, the district court denied defendants qualified immunity in the context of their motion for summary judgment, and they appealed. Ramos had a history of aggressive behavior at the jail, and had been charged with several violations of jail rules on several occasions for threatening behavior towards jail staff, including a threat to stab a deputy in the neck, and toward other inmates, including the Plaintiff. Ramos had threatened Plaintiff shortly after Plaintiff’s arrival at the jail, and Plaintiff requested that he be reassigned to another housing pod away from Ramos. After an argument between Ramos and Plaintiff, Plaintiff again expressed concern about Ramos’ aggression toward him. In 2012, Ramos was being escorted back from a court proceeding by Defendant Hochmuth, and was unshackled in the booking area of the jail, which was adjacent to the professional visitation room. At that time, Plaintiff was in the visitation room, meeting with a mental health counselor. Defendant Hochmuth proceeded to unshackle Ramos in the booking area, and instructed him to return to his housing pod. After taking one or two steps toward the housing pod door, Ramos suddenly turned around and ran into the visitation room through its unlocked door and assaulted Plaintiff. Although the altercation was brief, Plaintiff suffered a facial fracture from the assault. After review of the district court record, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the denial of immunity as to Defendant Hochmuth and reversed as to Defendant Minor. View "Durkee v. Minor" on Justia Law

Defendant Elias Amado appealed two district court decisions denying his respective motions for reduction of sentence. Defendant, an illegal immigrant, was caught in 2013 with lots of guns, ammunition, drugs, money, and other incriminating evidence. As part of his plea agreement, Defendant “knowingly and voluntarily waive[d] his right to . . . move to modify under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) or some other ground, his sentence as imposed by the court[.]” Based on an offense level of 37 and a criminal history category of II, Defendant’s guideline range was 235 to 293 months’ imprisonment on the drug count. The district court sentenced Defendant to 240 months’ imprisonment on that count and a concurrent term of 120 months’ imprisonment (the maximum allowable) on the illegal reentry count. Consistent with the terms of his plea agreement, Defendant did not pursue a direct appeal. Subsequently, Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines took effect on November 1, 2014. Despite his plea waiver, Defendant filed a motion pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) for a reduction of sentence. Three months after filing his first appeal, Defendant moved to “hold briefing in abeyance.” According to Defendant, the Government had decided not to oppose any subsequent motion he might make for a sentence reduction pursuant to section 3582(c)(2) and Amendment 782. The Tenth Circuit tolled briefing. With his first appeal still pending, Defendant returned to district court and again moved for a reduction of sentence. And again the district court denied the motion. This time, however, the court explained in a written order not only why it denied Defendant’s second motion but also his first motion: Defendant’s first motion did not present a close question. Turning to the second motion, the court initially questioned its jurisdiction over the motion, relied on "an obscure federal rule" to exercise jurisdiction, considered the second motion as one for a sentence reduction, then denied it. After review, the Tenth Circuit found no error in the district court's ruling on the first motion. Defendant’s second motion fell "within the very definition of a motion to reconsider," and the Tenth Circuit found no abuse of discretion in denying it. View "United States v. Amado" on Justia Law

Defendant-appellant Ashley Tidzump was convicted of assault and requested an 18-month prison term, admitting an addiction to opiates and a need for treatment. Tidzump would have ordinarily qualified for the prison’s drug treatment program only if she began treatment with at least two years remaining on her sentence. The district court lengthened her prison sentence to 31 months. Though the sentence dipped below the guideline range, the sentence was long enough to allow Tidzump to become eligible for the prison’s drug treatment program. Tidzump appealed the sentence, presenting the issue for the Tenth Circuit’s review of whether the district court’s explanation for the sentence was permissible under “Tapia v. United States,” (564 U.S. 319 (2011)). In “Tapia,” the U.S. Supreme Court held that a federal district court could not impose or lengthen a prison term to promote rehabilitation. After review, the Tenth Circuit concluded that the sentence was impermissible because the district court expressly lengthened the sentence for the purpose of promoting rehabilitation. View "United States v. Tidzump" on Justia Law

Defendant-appellant Tremale Henry was on supervised release after term in prison when he got into an altercation with another man outside an Oklahoma City night club. At the probation revocation hearing that followed, the district court found Henry responsible for two separate assaults with a dangerous weapon. In the first assault, the court found that Henry swung a knife at his victim but missed. In the second assault an hour later, the court found that Henry struck again, this time successfully stabbing his victim. The court found each assault independently sufficient to warrant revocation of Henry’s supervised release. It then concluded that the two assaults, along with a third violation for lying to his probation officer, collectively warranted a new prison term of 24 months followed by six further years of supervised release. On appeal Mr. Henry argues that the district court erred by relying on hearsay in reaching its judgment. Finding only that the district court relied on hearsay for the second assault, the Tenth Circuit affirmed in part, and reversed in part, remanding for recalculation of Henry's sentence. View "United States v. Henry" on Justia Law

In 2012, a grand jury indicted Frank Sharron Piper, III for participating in a cocaine conspiracy and other related offenses. He pled guilty and was sentenced to 135 months in prison. Piper appealed the district court's denial of he motion for a sentence reduction based on retroactively applied Sentencing Guideline amendments. Piper argues the district court: (1) failed to address the policy arguments in his motion; (2) exceeded its statutory authority when it considered newly alleged presentencing conduct not addressed at the original sentencing; (3) made fact findings regarding a rap video he made (referencing those "who told on me" and "stop snitchin'") without holding a hearing; and (4) erroneously concluded Piper intended the video (posted online at YouTube) to be viewed by and construed as a threat to the cooperating witnesses. The Tenth Circuit found none of these arguments availing and affirmed the sentence. View "United States v. Piper" on Justia Law