Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The Fifth Circuit denied the petition for review, holding that petitioner's conviction for sexual assault of a child was a "crime of child abuse," making him removable under Section 237(a)(2)(E)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. In this case, defendant raped and impregnated his fourteen-year-old stepdaughter. Defendant was arrested for the rape seventeen years later and charged with sexual assault of a child in violation of Texas Penal Code section 22.011(a)(2). He was convicted and sentenced to ten years probation.The court held that the Board's interpretation of a "crime of child abuse, child neglect, or child abandonment" is a reasonable reading of a statutory ambiguity, and joined the Second, Third, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits in holding that the Board's interpretation is entitled to Chevron deference. Reviewing de novo, the court held that defendant's conviction under Texas Penal Code section 22.011(a)(2) falls within the Board's definition of a crime of child abuse. View "Garcia v. Barr" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of habeas relief to petitioner under 28 U.S.C. 2254(d). Petitioner alleged claims of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel (IAAC) based on state appellate counsel's failure to raise a Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), claim on direct appeal.The court held that the district court did not commit reversible error in failing to explicitly review the merits of the IAAC claim. The court also held that the magistrate judge's conclusion that no Batson violation occurred establishes that appellate counsel's failure to raise the Batson challenge on direct appeal did not prejudice petitioner. Therefore, petitioner failed to satisfy the elements of his IAAC claim. View "Moore v. Vannoy" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit granted a certificate of appealability on petitioner's claim that his trial counsel failed to subject the prosecution's case to meaningful adversarial testing in violation of United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648, 104 S. Ct. 2039 (1984).Even when reviewed de novo, the court held that counsel's statements during summation and sentencing did not amount to a complete failure to mount a defense and thus Cronic does not apply. In this case, counsel did not entirely fail to subject the prosecution's case to meaningful adversarial testing. Rather, counsel actively advocated on petitioner's behalf throughout the trial and he moved to suppress evidence; he cross-examined the state's witnesses on their identification of petitioner as the culprit, ultimately impeaching several of them and prompting the arguably most critical witness to admit she lied to the police; cross-examined the detectives involved in the underlying investigation on their search and arrest of petitioner, as well as the subsequent handling of evidence; and counsel did not abandon petitioner by conceding the only factual issues in dispute. View "Thomas v. Davis" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit vacated defendant's conviction for two counts of knowingly using a counterfeit passport to open two bank accounts. The court held that the district court plainly erred when it neglected to give its limiting instruction to the jury regarding the use of impeachment evidence. In this case, the evidence was extremely damaging to defendant, the need for a limiting instruction was obvious, and the district court's failure to issue a limiting instruction sua sponte affected defendant's substantial rights. View "United States v. Okpara" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for 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 evidence recovered from the Title III wiretaps; a rational trier of fact could have found that defendant conspired with others to distribute crack cocaine; the district court properly applied a firearm enhancement to defendant's sentence under USSG 2K2.1 cmt. 14(B)(ii); and the district court did not commit plain error in applying a career offender enhancement under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) under USSG 4B1.1(a) because defendant's conspiracy conviction, which qualified as a controlled substance offense, coupled with his 2002 felony conviction for distributing marijuana and 2003 felony conviction for cocaine distribution qualified him as an ACCA career offender. View "United States v. Kendrick" on Justia Law

Vickers was convicted as a felon in possession of a firearm, 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1). The PSR concluded that he was an Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) career offender based on his prior Texas felony convictions for murder, burglary of a habitation, and unlawful delivery of a controlled substance. In 2007, the court sentenced Vickers to 190 months’ imprisonment, which was adjusted to 168 months to give him credit for 22 months served in Texas state prisons for a related state offense. The Fifth Circuit affirmed.In 2015, Vickers filed a 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion alleging that his prior convictions no longer qualify as predicate offenses under the ACCA in light of the Supreme Court’s 2015 Johnson decision. The Fifth Circuit authorized a successive section 2555 motion to address the Texas murder conviction but denied his request to challenge his sentence based on the argument that his Texas burglary conviction no longer qualifies. The district court vacated Vickers’s sentence and resentenced him to 98 months. The Fifth Circuit vacated, applying the categorical approach to conclude that the statute under which Vickers was convicted meets the ACCA’s definition of a violent felony as involving “physical force against the person of another.” View "United States v. Vickers" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for possession of child pornography. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea. The court also held that the district court did not err when it applied a two level sentencing enhancement for knowingly engaging in distribution of child pornography pursuant to USSG 2G2.2(b)(3)(F), and that a National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) cyber-tip generated by information provided to NCMEC by an internet company such as Google carries with it significant indicia of reliability. Finally, the district court did not err when it applied a five level pattern of abuse enhancement under USSG 2G2.2(b)(5). View "United States v. Landreneau" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of a petition for writ of habeas corpus based on petitioner's claim that the state violated her rights under Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), and that her attorney rendered ineffective assistance of counsel.The court held that, even assuming that counsel performed deficiently by failing to call petitioner's family to testify about her character and the struggles she endured, the state court reasonably found that petitioner failed to establish prejudice. Furthermore, after weighing the mitigation evidence against the aggravating evidence, the aggravating evidence outweighed the mitigation evidence. The court also held that, although counsel was ineffective in failing to object to the erroneous instruction regarding Texas's law of parties, petitioner failed to demonstrate prejudice. The court further held that petitioner's claim that counsel was ineffective in failing to object to the statements concerning parole availability is without merit. Finally, the court held that the state court properly rejected the Batson claim where the prosecution presented a race-neutral explanation for the peremptory challenge. View "Sheppard v. Davis" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of the petition for habeas corpus relief based on petitioner's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. The court agreed with the district court that there is no reasonable probability that a juror would have found that the mitigating evidence, both old and new, outweighed the aggravating evidence. Therefore, the mitigating evidence is not so compelling that it would tip the balance and establish a "substantial" likelihood of a different result. Accordingly, the district court correctly held that petitioner has not proven prejudice to prevail on his Wiggins claim. View "Canales v. Davis" on Justia Law

Defendants Lagrone, Davis, and Sanders were convicted of several offenses related to the sex trafficking of underage females. Lagrone and Davis were rival pimps, and Sanders assisted Lagrone in his trafficking of underage females.The Fifth Circuit affirmed Lagrone and Davis' convictions, holding that even if they were misjoined, the error was harmless. However, the court held that there was a constructive amendment of the production of child pornography count against Sanders. Therefore, the court reversed and vacated Sanders' conviction and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Sanders" on Justia Law