Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

A defendant cannot demand that his federal sentence run concurrently with a state sentence without establishing that both are premised on the same conduct. The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's offense, holding that the district court did not violate USSG 5G1.3(c) by failing to impose a concurrent sentence. In this case, defendant failed to present evidence that his state offense was part of the same course of conduct as the federal stolen mail offense. Nor did he present evidence that the offenses were part of a common scheme or plan. The court also held that defendant's within-Guidelines sentence was not substantively unreasonable and the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing defendant. View "United States v. Sanchez Ochoa" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed three conditions of supervised release imposed as part of defendant's sentence for aiding and abetting possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine and unlawful possession of a firearm. The court delayed hearing the appeal pending en banc consideration of United States v. Diggles, 957 F.3d 551 (5th Cir. 2020) (en banc), where the court held that a sentencing court pronounces supervision conditions when it orally adopts a document recommending those conditions.The court held that, in this case, the sentencing court's oral pronouncement of truncated versions was such an adoption. Here, after giving defendant notice of the proposed conditions in both the presentencing report and the standing order, it was clear that the district court adopted the full terms of those conditions orally at the sentencing hearing. View "United States v. Grogan" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for three firearms offenses, but vacated his sentence in part, remanding for amendment of the written judgment by removing an unpronounced special condition. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support his conviction under an aiding-and-abetting theory of making false statements in connection with the acquisition of a firearm, as well as making false statements with respect to information that a licensed firearms dealer is required to keep in its records; the evidence was also sufficient to support his conviction of possession of a firearm and ammunition by a convicted felon; but the district court abused its discretion by including, in the written judgment, a special condition of supervised release that it omitted from the oral pronouncement of sentence. View "United States v. Fields" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's 120 month sentence imposed after she was convicted of conspiracy to commit health care fraud and conspiracy to commit money laundering.The court held that defendant failed to show that the district court imposed an unconstitutional trial penalty on her at sentencing and rejected her claim that she was treated more harshly than her co-conspirators because she chose to go to trial rather than to plead guilty. In this case, her only direct co-conspirator was charged with different crimes that carried different statutory maximum sentences. The court also held that defendant's sentence was not procedurally unreasonable where the district court did not abuse its discretion by improperly presuming the Guidelines range to be reasonable; the district court considered the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities; and defendant failed to show a reasonable probability that an explanation by the district court for running the sentences consecutively would have changed her total punishment. Finally, the court held that defendant's sentence was not substantively unreasonable and upheld the district court's restitution order, rejecting procedural and constitutional challenges. View "United States v. Gozes-Wagner" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of habeas relief to petitioner, who was convicted of murder and aggravated assault. Because of petitioner's prior convictions at the time of the shooting, he was a felon in possession of a firearm. Therefore, the jury could consider petitioner's failure to retreat in evaluating the reasonableness of his actions. In this case, petitioner claimed that he fired the weapon in self-defense and that his lawyer did not tell him that the jury could consider his failure to retreat under Texas law.The court held, under the Strickland test, that counsel's performance fell outside the wide range of reasonable professional assistance when he was silent on a central component of the self-defense statute and thus petitioner could not appreciate the extraordinary risks of passing up the State's plea offer. However, under the Frye prejudice test, the court held that petitioner failed to carry his burden of proof by showing that the prosecution would not withdraw the plea or that the court would have accepted it. View "Anaya v. Lumpkin" on Justia Law

Wardrip committed five murders in Texas in 1984-1986.. He surrendered to police and confessed to his last murder. Wardrip was released on parole in 1997. After DNA testing connected Wardrip to unsolved murders, he was arrested and confessed to four other murders. At trial, the state introduced Wardrip’s prison disciplinary record, with only two infractions during his 11 years in prison. Wardrip’s defense counsel called a parole officer and an employer to testify to Wardrip’s good behavior while on parole. Waldrip’s attorney, Curry, later explained that suggesting Wardrip had rehabilitated would have required putting Wardrip on the stand. Curry wanted jurors to focus on the fact that Wardrip was not a disciplinary problem and not a danger to anyone if imprisoned for life. The jury found that Wardrip would be a threat to society and that mitigating circumstances did not warrant life imprisonment. The court sentenced Wardrip to death. Texas courts denied habeas relief.The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s grant of federal habeas relief. It was not an “unreasonable determination of the facts” for the state court to find that Curry had conducted a reasonable investigation that made him aware of Wardrip’s good conduct while imprisoned and made a reasonable strategic decision regarding what evidence to present, satisfying Strickland’s standard for effective assistance of counsel. It was also reasonable for the court to conclude that whatever else Curry might have done, the failure to take those steps had not prejudiced Wardrip. View "Wardrip v. Lumpkin" on Justia Law

Vialva was convicted under federal law of capital murder and sentenced to death. Since his 2000 conviction, Vialva’s conviction was affirmed on direct appeal; his 28 U.S.C. 2255 challenge was denied; and his effort to vacate the denial of his section 2255 motion under FRCP 60(b) failed. The Federal Bureau of Prisons scheduled Vialva’s execution for September 24, 2020, and informed Vialva on July 31, 2020. Vialva moved to enjoin his execution.The Fifth Circuit affirmed the denial of relief. Vialva is unlikely to succeed on the merits of his primary argument on appeal, that Texas state law should have been followed with respect to the issuance of an execution warrant and the setting of execution dates. Vialva has not shown the remaining factors favor a stay of execution. Vialva has thoroughly litigated his conviction and sentence. He was given official notice well in advance of his execution date. Vialva is not challenging his death sentence, but only the pre-execution procedures for carrying it out. The public’s interest in timely enforcement of the death sentence outweighs Vialva’s request for more time. View "United States v. Vialva" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained during a traffic stop. The search of defendant's vehicle revealed a suitcase that contained nine bundles of cocaine.The court held that the district court did not err in concluding that defendant voluntarily consented to the search of his vehicle. In this case, the district court considered the six factor balancing test and the totality of the circumstances, including the lack of coercive police procedures, the extent of defendant's cooperation, and defendant's education and intelligence. The court stated that the district court's analysis of the consent factors was plausible in light of the record as a whole. View "United States v. Soriano" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit denied the petition for panel rehearing and withdrew its prior panel opinion, substituting the following opinion.Defendant was convicted of conspiracy to distribute cocaine base and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. The court held that defendant was not entitled to an evidentiary Franks hearing and the district court correctly denied defendant's motion to suppress. In this case, even excising the alleged falsehoods and omissions, the Article III wiretap affidavit still included many other facts that incriminated defendant, giving rise to probable cause. The court also held that the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's drug conspiracy conviction. Finally, the court upheld the district court's imposition of two sentencing enhancements for possessing a firearm in furtherance of drug distribution and defining defendant as a career offender under the Armed Career Criminal Act. View "United States v. Kendrick" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for interference with interstate commerce by robbery, in violation of the Hobbs Act. The court held that the district court had a sufficient factual basis for accepting the guilty plea and thus the district court committed no error, plain or otherwise. In this case, the entire record unmistakably demonstrates that defendant participated in the June 6 robbery with the intent to obtain controlled substances. The court also held that there is no error, much less plain error, in the district court's acceptance of defendant's guilty plea. The district court explained the maximum punishment, the elements of the Hobbs Act charge, the evidence proving a violation of the Hobbs Act, defendant's trial rights, and the consequences of a guilty plea. View "United States v. Avalos-Sanchez" on Justia Law