Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The Internal Revenue Service notified petitioner-appellant James Cropper of its intent to collect unpaid taxes by levying his property. Cropper requested a collection due process (CDP) hearing with the IRS Office of Appeals. The Office of Appeals determined that the IRS could proceed with the proposed levy. Cropper sought judicial review, and the United States Tax Court sustained the Office of Appeals’ determination. Because the Tenth Circuit agreed with the Tax Court that the Office of Appeals didn’t abuse its discretion in determining that the IRS could proceed with the levy, it affirmed. View "Cropper v. CIR" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action in which they raised various claims relating to their arrests and now-vacated convictions for prostitution. The district court, with a magistrate judge presiding by consent of the parties, dismissed most of Plaintiffs’ claims as barred by the statute of limitations and granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ surviving claims of malicious prosecution. Plaintiffs appealed only the grant of summary judgment on their malicious prosecution claims against one Defendant, David Young. Young was employed by the City of Albuquerque as a civilian fleet manager for the police department. He also served as a voluntary reserve officer for the police department. In separate incidents occurring in 2007 and 2008, Plaintiffs were each arrested by Young on charges of prostitution after a brief conversation in his unmarked vehicle. Young then filed criminal complaints and prosecuted misdemeanor prostitution cases against Plaintiffs in municipal court. Each Plaintiff pled guilty to the charges against her. In 2011, an attorney filed a petition for relief from judgment on behalf of Plaintiffs and nine other women who had pled guilty to prostitution after being arrested and prosecuted by Young, arguing he abused and misrepresented his position and authority as an agent of the City of Albuquerque when making the arrests. Instead of filing a response to the petition, the city entered into a stipulation with the petitioners agreeing that the requested relief should be granted. The state district court entered a set aside petitioners’ guilty pleas, vacating and dismissing with prejudice their judgments and sentences. Plaintiffs then filed this federal 1983 action in which they alleged, among other claims, that Young subjected them to malicious prosecution in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. After dismissing Plaintiffs’ other claims as barred by the statute of limitations, the federal district court determined Young was entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ malicious prosecution claims because they had not met their burden of demonstrating that their criminal cases were terminated in a way that indicated their actual innocence of the charges against them. "Although we sympathize with Plaintiffs’ concerns about possible abuses of police power and authority, we are not persuaded that these concerns require (or permit) us to vary from our settled law on malicious prosecution." The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. View "M.G. v. Young" on Justia Law

Appellant Ivan Bennett Willis was charged with aggravated sexual abuse committed in Indian country. Willis admitted he had sex with a seventeen-year-old acquaintance, K.M., and that the events occurred in Indian country. But Willis contended K.M. consented to the encounter. Thus, the only issue at trial was whether Willis used force against K.M. After a two-day trial, the jury returned a guilty verdict. Willis appealed, challenging multiple evidentiary rulings by the trial court. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "United States v. Willis" on Justia Law

A jury convicted Robert Holloway of four counts of wire fraud and one count of tax fraud. The charges against Holloway were the result of a scheme he created through his company, US Ventures, that defrauded over 250 investors and caused losses in excess of $15 million. Holloway began soliciting investors in 2005 by guaranteeing incredible returns in futures markets due to a mathematical algorithm he had created. When Holloway failed to realize the gains he promised, he started defrauding his investors by stating that his trading was profitable even though he lost substantial amounts of money, using money from new investors to pay other investors, and fabricating reports to investors stating that his daily returns were between 0 to 1.15% and that his trading never resulted in a loss. He also diverted investor funds for his own personal use. The district court sentenced Holloway to 225 months of imprisonment on all five counts. On appeal, Holloway argued: (1) he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to counsel of his choice; (2) the district court allowed impermissible victim impact testimony; (3) denied him his constitutional right to confront witnesses; and (4) improperly enhanced his sentence. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "United States v. Holloway" on Justia Law

Bigler Jobe Stouffer was convicted in Oklahoma state court of first-degree murder and shooting with intent to kill. The jury sentenced him to death for the murder charge. After his direct appeal and state post-conviction proceedings were unsuccessful, Stouffer filed for habeas relief in federal court, alleging a juror had improperly communicated with her husband about the case during the penalty phase of trial. In the preceding case, the Tenth Circuit held the district court erred by failing to conduct an evidentiary hearing on Stouffer’s claim of jury tampering. The case was therefore remanded to the district court to conduct a hearing and rule on Stouffer’s claim. Based on evidence presented at a day-long evidentiary hearing, the district court determined Stouffer’s right to an impartial jury had not been violated and denied his habeas application. Stouffer appealed, but finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "Stouffer v. Duckworth" on Justia Law

Pro se plaintiff-appellant LaTonya Davis brought this action against four Lakewood Police Department officers and the City of Lakewood (the “City”). She alleged that the officers used excessive force in arresting her for a misdemeanor offense. Police stopped Davis’ car, which had a license plate with a handicapped symbol, for driving with a suspended license. Officer Todd Clifford called for additional assistance; several police cars arrived and officers began pounding Davis’ car with their batons, demanding she exit the vehicle. Fearing for her safety, Davis asked the officers for assurances that they would not hurt her, and they responded by smashing her car window, pulling her through the broken window by her hair and arms, and throwing her on the glass-littered pavement. Davis claimed the City was culpable in failing to properly train and supervise the officers. She appealed the district court’s grant of summary judgment, which held the officers were entitled to qualified immunity and that the City was not liable. After review, the Tenth Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded for further proceedings. Specifically, the Court reversed the district court’s grant of qualified immunity to two of the officers, Clifford and Sergeant Todd Fahlsing. "If proven, their alleged use of force against a misdemeanant who did not pose an immediate threat to herself or others would be excessive under clearly established law." The Court affirmed as to all other defendants because Davis waived any challenge with respect to those defendants. View "Davis v. Clifford" on Justia Law

Defendant Almundo Cruz Singer pleaded guilty to one count of involuntary manslaughter in Indian country, and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of seventy-five months, to be followed by a three-year term of supervised release. Singer’s offense of conviction stems from his involvement in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on December 9, 2014, in Church Rock. Marvin Ahasteen and his wife were walking from their Church Rock residence that day to eat lunch at the Fire Rock Casino, which is located on the north side of New Mexico State Highway 118. The couple jogged across the lanes of State Highway 118 and, as they did so, Mrs. Ahasteen "jogged in front of her husband" and "reached the [north] side of the highway." At that moment, Mrs. Ahasteen "heard her husband exclaim 'oh sh[it]' and turned to see him hit by a white car driving westbound” on State Highway 118. Mr. Ahasteen was decapitated as a result of the accident, his "left leg was dismembered at the proximal tibia and fibula," and his "body parts, blood and clothing were scattered over a distance of approximately 274 feet,” As a result of the force of impact, "all of [Mr. Ahasteen’s] clothes were removed, aside from his underwear that came down to his knees and his right sock." Singer appealed, challenging the procedural and substantive reasonableness of his sentence. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "United States v. Singer" on Justia Law

Emiliano Martinez pleaded guilty to possessing an unregistered, short-barrel shotgun in violation of federal law. Under his plea agreement, Martinez reserved the right to appeal his sentence if the district court determined that his total offense level was greater than 23 under the 2014 United States Sentencing Guidelines. The district court calculated his total offense level as 27 after applying a four-level enhancement for using or possessing a firearm in connection with another felony. Central to this enhancement was the district court’s finding that Martinez had possessed a firearm in connection with another felony offense: a burglary of the home from which the shotgun Martinez later possessed was stolen. On appeal, Martinez argued that the district court clearly erred at sentencing when it considered the hearsay statements of Eduardo Hernandez, who, in a police interview, had admitted to committing the burglary with Martinez. Martinez argued that Hernandez’s hearsay statements lacked sufficient indicia of reliability to support their probable accuracy. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court. View "United States v. Martinez" on Justia Law

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