Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Donald Turner pleaded guilty to bank robbery and unlawful possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. At the time of these offenses, Turner was on supervised release and admitted to related violations. Due to his history of violent felonies, Turner was designated an armed career criminal, resulting in an advisory sentencing guideline range of 180 to 210 months. The district court sentenced him to 210 months for the new offenses and an additional 24 months for the supervised release violations, to be served consecutively.Previously, Turner had been convicted of multiple bank robberies. In 2006, he committed two bank robberies in Maine, leading to a 60-month sentence. In 2011, while on supervised release, he committed another bank robbery and was sentenced to 72 months, plus 24 months for the supervised release violation. In 2020, while again on supervised release, Turner committed another bank robbery, leading to his current charges.Turner appealed, arguing that his felon-in-possession conviction violated his Second Amendment rights, that the district court committed procedural and substantive errors in sentencing, and that the court misapprehended its discretion regarding the consecutive supervised release sentence. The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed these claims.The First Circuit held that Turner waived his Second Amendment claim by not timely moving to dismiss the felon-in-possession count as required by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 12. The court found that the district court imposed a procedurally sound and substantively reasonable sentence. The court also determined that the district court did not believe it was required to impose a consecutive revocation sentence but chose to do so based on sentencing considerations. Consequently, the First Circuit affirmed the judgments. View "US v. Turner" on Justia Law

Joel Anthony Cockerham, the petitioner, is confined at a federal facility in Massachusetts after being civilly committed under 18 U.S.C. § 4243 by a federal district court in the Northern District of Mississippi. Cockerham filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, seeking discharge from his commitment and compensation for damages. He argued that his continued confinement was unlawful and sought non-conditional release.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts dismissed Cockerham's habeas petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, reasoning that he should have sought relief from the committing court under 18 U.S.C. § 4247(h). The court also denied Cockerham's motion to amend his petition, concluding that amendment would be futile because the amended petition also sought relief from confinement, which should be addressed by the committing court.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the dismissal of Cockerham's original habeas petition, agreeing that § 4247(h) provides a mechanism for seeking discharge and that Cockerham had not shown that this remedy was inadequate or unavailable. However, the court vacated and remanded the District Court's ruling on the motion to amend. The appellate court found that Cockerham's proposed amended petition, which challenged the suitability of his confinement at FMC Devens and sought transfer to a less restrictive facility, was distinct from a claim for discharge and could potentially be addressed under § 2241. The court instructed the District Court to reconsider whether the amended claims could be heard under § 2241 or if they must be brought under § 4247(h). View "Cockerham v. Boncher" on Justia Law

The defendant was convicted of unlawful possession of a machine gun in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(o) and 924(a)(2) after entering a straight guilty plea. He was sentenced to forty-eight months' imprisonment followed by three years of supervised release. The defendant appealed, arguing that his sentence was both procedurally and substantively unreasonable.The case originated when the defendant was a passenger in a car stopped by police for having darkly tinted windows. During the stop, the driver reached for a fanny pack containing a firearm, which was visible to the officer. Both the driver and the defendant admitted to owning the firearm and knowing it was modified to function as a fully automatic weapon. The defendant was charged with illegal possession of a machine gun.After his arrest, the defendant was released under supervision but violated the terms of his release by testing positive for marijuana multiple times. He explained that he used marijuana to cope with the deaths of several family members. Despite these violations, the court took no action before his sentencing hearing.At sentencing, the district court considered the defendant's criminal history, the nature of the offense, and his repeated violations of pretrial release. The court also noted the dangerousness of modified machine guns and the high rate of gun violence in Puerto Rico. The court imposed a sentence above the guidelines range, citing the need to reflect the seriousness of the offense and to promote respect for the law.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case and found that the district court did not commit procedural error and that the sentence was substantively reasonable. The appellate court affirmed the sentence, concluding that the district court provided a plausible rationale for the upward variance and adequately considered the defendant's individual circumstances. View "United States v. Cordero-Velazquez" on Justia Law

Djuna Goncalves was indicted and pleaded guilty to eight counts of drug and firearm-related charges. He reserved the right to appeal a sentence exceeding 180 months. Goncalves was sentenced to 230 months in prison followed by five years of supervised release. He appealed, arguing that the district court improperly applied a two-level enhancement for his role as an organizer, leader, supervisor, or manager under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(c).The District Court of Massachusetts initially handled the case. Goncalves did not dispute the factual basis for his plea or the guideline calculations, except for the enhancement for his role in the criminal activity. The district court applied a two-level enhancement, concluding that Goncalves was a manager or supervisor of his family members involved in the drug trafficking operation. This resulted in a total offense level of 31 and a guidelines range of 151 to 188 months, plus a mandatory consecutive sentence for firearm possession.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court vacated the two-level enhancement, finding insufficient evidence that Goncalves exercised control over, managed, organized, or supervised another participant. The court noted that while Goncalves gave instructions during a drug transaction, there was no evidence that these instructions were obeyed, which is necessary to prove managerial or supervisory authority. The court vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing without the enhancement. View "United States v. Goncalves" on Justia Law

In this case, the appellant, Elvin Torres-Estrada, was charged in a superseding indictment with conspiring to distribute controlled substances and other related offenses. Plea negotiations began, and the government offered a plea deal allowing Torres-Estrada to request a 188-month sentence. However, one of his attorneys, Ramón Garcia, advised him to counteroffer for a lower sentence and assured him that he could negotiate a better deal. This advice conflicted with the recommendations of Torres-Estrada's other attorneys, who believed the government's offer was favorable and urged him to accept it promptly.The United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico initially handled the case. Torres-Estrada followed Garcia's advice, leading to a series of counteroffers and negotiations that ultimately did not result in a more favorable plea deal. Instead, Torres-Estrada later signed a consolidated plea agreement for a 264-month sentence, with the government allowed to argue for 288 months. The district court sentenced him to 288 months. Torres-Estrada filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel, which the district court denied.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court examined whether Garcia's advice and actions constituted ineffective assistance of counsel under the standards set by Missouri v. Frye and Lafler v. Cooper. The court found that while Garcia's conduct was problematic, it did not meet the threshold for constitutionally deficient performance. Additionally, the court concluded that Torres-Estrada failed to demonstrate that he would have accepted the government's original plea offer but for Garcia's advice. Therefore, the First Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of sentencing relief. View "Torres-Estrada v. United States" on Justia Law

The defendant, Ronald Andruchuk, purchased 169 firearms over five months in 2021 while struggling with drug addiction. He falsely attested on federal forms that he did not use illicit drugs. Neighbors complained about bullets flying dangerously close to their homes, and on February 24, 2022, police witnessed bullets flying above their heads from Andruchuk's property. He was arrested for violating a state law against firing ammunition in a compact area. A federal investigation led to a search of his home, where agents found 219 unsecured firearms, gun paraphernalia, and over 25,000 rounds of ammunition. Andruchuk was charged with making false statements during firearms purchases and possession of a firearm by an unlawful user of a controlled substance.The United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island accepted Andruchuk's guilty plea to two counts of making false statements and one count of possession of a firearm by an unlawful user of a controlled substance. In exchange, the government agreed to dismiss the remaining charges and recommend a sentence at the low end of the guideline range. Andruchuk waived his right to appeal if the sentence was within or below the guideline range determined by the court. The court calculated a guideline range of sixty-three to seventy-eight months and sentenced him to sixty-three months.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. Andruchuk argued that the district court erred in calculating the guideline range and that this error invalidated his appellate waiver. The Court of Appeals upheld the waiver, finding it was knowing and voluntary, and dismissed the appeal. The court also dismissed Andruchuk's ineffective assistance of counsel claim as premature, noting it could be raised in a collateral proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. View "United States v. Andruchuk" on Justia Law

In 2016, Kevin Millette was charged with possession of child pornography, having 24,277 images and 1,022 videos. He admitted to a lifelong problem with child pornography and pleaded guilty, receiving a 120-month prison sentence followed by seven years of supervised release. In December 2020, after serving about sixty-one months, he was granted compassionate release with several special conditions, including a prohibition on unsupervised contact with minors. In August 2023, a probation officer found Millette's teenage daughter in his bedroom while his approved supervisor, his mother, was outside. Millette initially lied about the sleeping arrangements but later admitted to sleeping in the same room as his daughter without supervision.The United States District Court for the District of Maine held a revocation hearing in September 2023. The court found that Millette violated the condition prohibiting unsupervised contact with minors, noting that his conduct was a clear violation given his criminal history and the purpose of the condition. The court sentenced him to two months' imprisonment followed by five years of supervised release, reimposing the same special condition.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. Millette argued that the phrase "in the presence of" in the special condition was ambiguous and that the district court erred in finding a violation and reimposing the condition. The Court of Appeals found no error, holding that the condition was clear and that Millette's conduct constituted a violation. The court also found that reimposing the condition was justified given Millette's history and ongoing risk to minors. The court affirmed the revocation of Millette's supervised release and the reimposition of the special condition. View "U.S. v. Millette" on Justia Law

In this case, the defendant, Dominick Bailey, pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). This was Bailey's third conviction for the same offense, with previous convictions in 1997 and 2006. In 2019, Bailey was involved in a guns-for-drugs transaction, where he admitted to possessing firearms despite his felon status. He was arrested in Boston with multiple firearms in his possession. Bailey pleaded guilty without a plea agreement during a virtual proceeding.The District Court for the District of Massachusetts sentenced Bailey to eighty-seven months of imprisonment, departing upward from the advisory sentencing guideline range due to Bailey's extensive criminal history. Bailey objected to the sentencing departure in the district court.On appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, Bailey challenged the indictment, the voluntariness of his guilty plea, the procedural aspects of his sentencing, and the substantive reasonableness of his sentence. The appellate court reviewed Bailey's claims, applying plain error review to unpreserved claims and abuse of discretion to preserved claims.The First Circuit found no plain error in the district court's determination that Bailey's guilty plea was knowing and voluntary, despite Bailey's mental health conditions and medication use. The court also found that the district court did not err in its explanation for the upward departure, noting that Bailey's criminal history was extensive and warranted a higher sentence for public protection and deterrence. The appellate court affirmed the district court's judgment, concluding that the eighty-seven-month sentence was reasonable given Bailey's persistent criminality and the seriousness of the offense. View "United States v. Bailey" on Justia Law

In this case, the defendant, Domingo Emmanuel Bruno-Cotto, pleaded guilty to two counts of carjacking and one count of kidnapping following a multi-day crime spree in Puerto Rico. The spree included carjacking an Uber driver, kidnapping an airport passenger, and committing multiple sexual assaults on a woman at a beach. The district court sentenced Bruno-Cotto to 208 months in prison, which was 20 months above the advisory guideline range, citing the unusual cruelty of his actions.The United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico initially reviewed the case. Bruno-Cotto did not contest the facts in the presentence report but requested a lower sentence based on his difficult childhood and mental health issues. The government argued for a high-end guideline sentence, emphasizing Bruno-Cotto's leadership role and the premeditated nature of his crimes. The district court ultimately imposed a higher sentence, highlighting the severity and cruelty of Bruno-Cotto's actions, particularly the repeated sexual assaults.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case on appeal. Bruno-Cotto argued that the sentence was procedurally flawed due to the district court's reliance on unreliable hearsay and that it was substantively unreasonable compared to his co-defendant's sentence. The appellate court found no plain error in the district court's reliance on the presentence report, noting that the hearsay information had sufficient indicia of trustworthiness. The court also found the sentence substantively reasonable, given the egregious nature of Bruno-Cotto's conduct and the differences in culpability between him and his co-defendant. The First Circuit affirmed the district court's 208-month sentence. View "United States v. Bruno-Cotto" on Justia Law

The case involves Miguel Santana-Avilés, who was convicted of assaulting a correctional officer at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Guaynabo, Puerto Rico. On August 20, 2020, during an inmate count, Officer Efrén Rosario found an extra pillow in the cell shared by Santana-Avilés and two other inmates, which violated prison policy. When Officer Rosario attempted to remove the pillow, one of the cellmates, Héctor Maldonado-Maldonado, attacked him. Santana-Avilés then grabbed Officer Rosario from behind, allowing Maldonado to continue the assault. Santana-Avilés also encouraged the attack by shouting "Hit him." The officers eventually subdued both inmates with the help of reinforcements.The United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico presided over the initial trial. Santana-Avilés did not testify but sought to introduce statements he made during the incident, claiming they were excited utterances. The court excluded these statements as hearsay. Additionally, the court admitted an email from a prison technician explaining the lack of video evidence due to technical issues, despite Santana-Avilés's objections. The jury found Santana-Avilés guilty of aiding and abetting the assault of a correctional officer, and he was sentenced to eighty-seven months in prison.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. Santana-Avilés argued that the district court made erroneous evidentiary rulings by excluding his statements and admitting the email. The appellate court found that even if the exclusion of Santana-Avilés's statements was an error, it was harmless given the overwhelming evidence against him. The court also held that the email was properly admitted to rebut an implied charge of fabrication or improper motive. Consequently, the First Circuit affirmed the conviction and sentence. View "United States v. Santana-Aviles" on Justia Law