Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to vacate his conviction and sentence based on the ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC). The court held that the district court's reading of the facts was not clearly erroneous. The court explained that it was unlikely that counsel's erroneous advice regarding the elements of conviction meaningfully affected defendant's calculus of whether to accept the plea deal. View "United States v. Gonzalez" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to law enforcement officers in an excessive force action filed under 42 U.S.C. 1983 by the estate of the deceased. The court held that the evidence did not raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the officers' use of deadly force violated the deceased's Fourth Amendment rights. Therefore, the officers were entitled to qualified immunity. In this case, the officers had probable cause to conclude that the deceased posed a serious threat of physical injury or death where the officers thought they were confronting an unpredictable man armed with a dangerous weapon. View "Garza v. Briones" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine. The court held that defendant failed to show plain or clear error in the calculation of the drug quantity. The court also held that the district court did not err by applying a two-level importation enhancement under USSG 2D1.1(b)(5); the district court did not procedurally err by refusing to apply a minor participant reduction under USSG 3B1.2(b); and the 235 month sentence was substantively reasonable in light of defendant's extensive criminal history and the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors. View "United States v. Kearby" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute fentanyl, methamphetamine, and cocaine, and possession of a firearm and ammunition by a felon. The court held that, although the district court erroneously stated that defendant "had dope" in describing his 2006 arrest, there was no additional, obvious evidence indicating that the district court mistakenly believed defendant had three drug convictions or that the district court's decision to impose an upward variance was affected by such a belief. Therefore, the district court's single misstatement, when considered in the context of the record as a whole, did not affect defendant's substantial rights, and thus defendant failed to satisfy the third prong of the plain error test. View "United States v. Johnson" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's grant of defendant's motion to suppress cell-site location information (CSLI), declaring the court order and warrant void. The Supreme Court held in Carpenter v. United States that if the government wants CSLI it needs a valid search warrant. On the same day Carpenter was decided, federal prosecutors in this case applied for the search warrant for the CSLI they already had.The court held that the Krull strand of the good-faith exception properly applies to the 2015 CSLI, since it was obtained pursuant to a pre-Carpenter warrantless order authorized by statute. The court stated that the government pursued the statutory order in good faith, and thus the CSLI should not have been suppressed. In regard to the 2014 CSLI, the court held that the Leon strand of the good-faith exception applied because those records were first sought and obtained under a post-Carpenter search warrant. The court stated that the government acted in good faith when applying for the search warrant and, even if the government did not act in good faith, the warrant was supported by probable cause. Finally, the court held that any suppression of toll records and subscriber information under Carpenter was erroneous because Carpenter only applies to evidence that can be used to track a person's physical movements over time. View "United States v. Beverly" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit denied TDCJ's motion to vacate the district court's order granting Texas death row inmate Patrick Henry Murphy's motion seeking to stay his execution. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting the stay and agreed with the district court's implicit finding that Murphy had a strong likelihood of success on the merits of his claim that the TDCJ policy violates his rights by allowing inmates who share the same faith as TDCJ-employed clergy greater access to a spiritual advisor in the death house. The court held that Murphy's claim was timely, and rejected TDCJ's exhaustion argument. View "Murphy v. Collier" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence imposed after she was convicted of mail fraud, wire fraud, theft of public money, aggravated identity theft, and unlawful monetary transactions. The court held that the district court did not clearly err by applying a two level sentencing enhancement under USSG 3C1.1 for obstruction of justice. In light of the factual findings of this case, the district court concluded that defendant obstructed a governmental investigation that was in progress or would be coming about. View "United States v. Stubblefield" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for illegally possessing drugs and firearms. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting jail phone records where the government produced sufficient evidence to authenticate the records; the calls were also admissible because the district court was convinced that the recordings accurately produced the auditory experience; the district court did not plainly err by admitting testimony regarding why drug dealers routinely use guns in their crimes because, even assuming the district court violated Federal Rule of Evidence 704(b), the error did not affect defendant's substantial rights; and the district court did not plainly err by allowing the prosecutor to suggest that the detective had no reason to lie. View "United States v. Johnson" on Justia Law

Petitioner, an inmate convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death, filed a federal petition for habeas corpus relief. After his petition was denied, he requested a certificate of appealability (COA), which was also denied. Petitioner then applied for a COA from the Fifth Circuit.The Fifth Circuit granted petitioner's COA on his Batson claim and Strickland guilt phase claim, holding that reasonable jurists could conclude that the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further. However, the court denied petitioner's application for a COA on his Strickland mitigation phase claim, holding that petitioner failed to show what more trial counsel could have done at the mitigation phase. Therefore, reasonable jurists would not debate the district court's decision to uphold the state court's reasoning. View "Ramey v. Davis" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for one count of conspiracy to commit securities fraud and two counts of securities fraud. Defendant's conviction stemmed from her purchase of company stock through her boyfriend and others. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's convictions, and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in failing to grant a severance and try her separately from her co-conspirators. View "United States v. Tinghui Xie" on Justia Law