Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

18 U.S.C. 3583(g), which requires revocation of supervised release and a term of imprisonment for certain drug and gun violations, is not unconstitutional under United States v. Haymond, 130 S. Ct. 2369 (2019). In Haymond, the Supreme Court held that a different mandatory revocation provision, section 3583(k), violates the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.The Fifth Circuit held that section 3583(g) lacks the three features which led the Supreme Court to hold section 3583(k) unconstitutional: first, while subsection (g) singles out certain conduct, only some of it is criminal; second, although subsection (g) takes away the judge's discretion to decide whether a violation should result in imprisonment, it does not dictate the length of the sentence; and third, subsection (g) does not limit the judge's discretion in the same "particular manner" as subsection (k). Therefore, the district court did not err in its revocation decision. View "United States v. Garner" on Justia Law

After the Supreme Court ruled in Ramos v. Louisiana, 140 S. Ct. 1390, 1394, 1397 (2020), that the Sixth Amendment, as incorporated against the states in the Fourteenth Amendment, requires a unanimous verdict to convict a defendant of a serious offense, movant moved for the Fifth Circuit's authorization to file a second or successive federal habeas petition.The court denied the motion for authorization to file a successive habeas corpus petition and held that, even if the court assumed that movant's current claim is different from the one he raised twelve years ago, it remains barred by 28 U.S.C. 2244(b)(2). The court explained that, even if it further assumed that Ramos constitutes a "new rule of constitutional law," the Supreme Court plainly has not made it retroactive to cases on collateral review. View "In Re: Larry Sharp" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence for illegal reentry, contending that the district court vindictively resentenced him to a harsher sentence. In this case, defendant's initial sentence was 72 months that was to run concurrently with a separate 24 month term. Defendant then appealed the 72 month sentence for violating the Ex Post Facto Clause, the case was remanded for resentencing, and the district court sentenced defendant to 60 months but ordered that the sentence now run consecutively to the 24 month sentence.The Fifth Circuit held that the record evidence supports a presumption of vindictiveness that has not been rebutted as required by Fifth Circuit case law. Furthermore, the district court plainly erred in ordering the instant sentence to run consecutive to defendant's revocation sentence. Accordingly, the court exercised its discretion and modified the judgment so that defendant's imprisonment terms run concurrently. View "United States v. Penado-Aparicio" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. 2254(d) based on a Confrontation Clause violation. Petitioner was convicted by a jury of armed robbery and aggravated battery.The court first held that the state intentionally waived its defense of procedural default. The court also held that the state district court's decision that no Confrontation Clause violation occurred through the handling of a detective's testimony constitutes an unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent, and the state waived harmlessness. In this case, the detective testified that a nontestifying witness implicated petitioner and the prosecution likewise referenced that testimony in its closing argument. Therefore, such testimony violates the Confrontation Clause. The court remanded for the district court to grant habeas relief. View "Atkins v. Hooper" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for conspiracy to distribute a kilogram or more of heroin. The court held that the statements in the factual basis form an adequate evidentiary foundation for defendant's guilty plea and thus defendant failed to show any error; the district court did not reversibly err by explaining the government's burden of proof for proving a conspiracy and attributing a quantity of drugs to defendant; and the court declined to evaluate defendant's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal. The court dismissed the ineffective assistance of counsel claims without prejudice. View "United States v. Jones" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for making false statements to obtain federal workers' compensation benefits under 18 U.S.C. 1920 and for theft of public money under 18 U.S.C. 641. The court assumed without deciding that it was clear error to admit the testimony about the general honesty of workers' compensation patients, and held that the error was harmless because it did not affect plaintiff's substantial rights. The court also held that the district court's jury instruction was not erroneous where the alternative verbs in the first paragraph of Section 641 are means of committing the offense, not elements. View "United States v. Coffman" on Justia Law

After petitioner filed a second-in-time habeas petition raising Brady and actual innocence claims, the district court concluded that the petition was successive and transferred it to the Fifth Circuit. Petitioner was convicted and sentenced to death for the capital murder of a police officer.The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's transfer order, holding that the petition is second or successive under 28 U.S.C. 2244. The court explained that, even though petitioner did not know of the State's alleged Brady violation at the time he filed his first habeas petition, it is still subject to the statutory requirements for filing a successive petition under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, and the district court did not err in transferring the habeas petition to this court.The court granted the motion for authorization, holding that petitioner made a prima facie showing that the factual predicate for his Brady claim could not have been previously discovered through due diligence. The court also held that petitioner has made a prima facie showing, by clear and convincing evidence, that no reasonable factfinder would find him guilty. In this case, petitioner has demonstrated that it is reasonably likely that, after hearing the Hit Document and the Schifani Report, every reasonable juror would have some level of reasonable doubt. View "Will v. Davis" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court held that defendant failed to present sufficient evidence on the fifth element of his justification defense and the district court properly refused to instruct the jury on the defense. Furthermore, even if the district court erred by excluding evidence related to the defense, the error was harmless.However, the court reversed the district court's restitution order, holding that the restitution imposed as a condition of supervised release can compensate only for losses caused by the specific conduct that is the basis for the offense of conviction. Therefore, even if the district court intended to order restitution as a condition of supervised release, the district court lacked authority to do so. Finally, the court held that precedent foreclosed defendant's contention that 18 U.S.C. 922(g), as construed, is unconstitutional. View "United States v. Penn" on Justia Law

Defendants Pike and Portillo were convicted of multiple counts related to a RICO conspiracy. The convictions arose out of their positions as high-ranking officials with the Bandidos Outlaws Motorcycle Club.The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that Portillo was not deprived of his Sixth Amendment rights during his initial appearance; the district court did not abuse its discretion in empaneling an anonymous jury and imposing security measures to protect the jury; the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions; the court rejected defendants' numerous evidentiary challenges; and the district court did not plainly err in imposing a special assessment on each of Portillo's thirteen crimes of conviction. View "United States v. Portillo" on Justia Law

On remand from the Supreme Court in light of Davis v. United States, 140 S. Ct. 1060 (2020), the Fifth Circuit reviewed defendant's sentence for plain error and held that it was not plain error for the district court to order that defendant's federal sentence run consecutively to any future-imposed sentence that arose out of the pending state court charges related to the earlier offenses in question.In this case, the district court's conclusion that the earlier state charges were unrelated to the instant offense, and thus its order that defendant's federal sentence run consecutively to any state sentences arising from the earlier charges, was not plain — i.e., clear and obvious — error under USSG 5G1.3(c). Finally, defendant abandoned any argument under USSG 5G1.3(d) and, even if he had not, any argument that the district court should have weighed the sentence factors differently would be an insufficient basis for reversal. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment. View "United States v. Lindsey" on Justia Law