Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff, an indigent state prisoner, filed three pro se civil rights actions in the district court against various employees of the South Carolina Department of Corrections and the City of Allendale. The Fourth Circuit joined the Ninth and Tenth Circuits to reaffirm that a district court's dismissal of a prisoner's complaint does not, in an appeal of that dismissal, qualify as a "prior" dismissal. Accordingly, plaintiff's motions to proceed in forma pauperis under the Prison Litigation Reform Act are granted. View "Taylor v. Grubbs" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling on defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment. The court held that the premise of defendant's argument -- – that the purported filing defect in his case deprived the immigration court of authority to enter a removal order, so that he may collaterally challenge that order in subsequent criminal proceedings -- was incorrect. Rather, there was no defect, because the applicable regulations did not require that the information identified by defendant, a date and time for a subsequent removal hearing, be included in the "notice to appear" that was filed with an immigration court to initiate the proceedings. View "United States v. Cortez" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit vacated the district court's order granting petitioner's motion under Federal of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6), seeking to reopen the district court's final judgment dismissing the intellectual disability claim on the merits under 28 U.S.C. 2254(d). In this case, petitioner's Rule 60(b) motion filed in the district court asserted that his previous claim of intellectual disability was wrongly decided on the merits based upon Hall v. Florida, 572 U.S. 701 (2014), and his new ground for Rule 60(b) relief asserted that his previous claim of intellectual disability was wrongly decided on the merits based upon the state court's 2015 decision. The court held that these were habeas claims not properly brought in a Rule 60(b) motion and, if petitioner was to have a second chance to litigate the merits of his intellectual disability claim, he must do so under section 2244(b). Accordingly, the panel remanded with instructions to dismiss the motion. View "Richardson v. Thomas" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography. Although the government could not successfully argue that the guilty plea or appeal waiver barred defendant's claim, the court held that defendant failed to show that it was more likely than not that no reasonable juror would have convicted him. Rather, a reasonable jury could have found that the video depicted a lascivious exhibition of the anus, genitals, or pubic area and convicted defendant of possessing child pornography. The court also held that counsel was not constitutionally deficient in failing to consult with defendant about taking an appeal, and his ineffective assistance claim failed. View "United States v. Courtade" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of petitioner's 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion contending that his prior convictions no longer qualified as predicate offenses under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) after the Supreme Court's decision in Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015).The court held that North Carolina common law robbery qualifies as an ACCA predicate under the Supreme Court's recent decision in Stokeling v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 544 (2019), which abrogated its prior holding in United States v. Gardner, 823 F.3d 793 (4th Cir. 2016). The court also held that a conviction under North Carolina law for being an accessory before the fact of armed robbery qualifies as a violent felony because that offense incorporates the elements of armed robbery, which itself is a violent felony. View "United States v. Dinkins" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute cocaine and methamphetamine, and possession of a firearm and ammunition as a convicted felon. The court held that defendant's prior conviction for distribution of crack cocaine in South Carolina was divisible and subject to the modified categorical approach, and the state offense elements aligned with the federal definitions. Therefore, the district court did not err in ruling that the distribution of crack cocaine conviction constitutes a predicate for the armed career criminal and career offender enhancements.The court also held that defendant's prior Georgia conviction for first-degree arson was a "violent felony" under the Armed Career Criminal Act and a "crime of violence" under the Guidelines. Accordingly, defendant had the requisite predicate offenses to be sentenced as an armed career criminal under the ACCA. View "United States v. Furlow" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the district court's denial of his motion under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36 to correct a clerical error in his Pre-Sentence Report (PSR). The Fourth Circuit held that the district court erred in holding that a defendant is categorically barred from relying on Rule 36 to correct a sentence tainted by a clerical error. However, the court nevertheless affirmed the district court's judgment because defendant's three remaining convictions were sufficient to sustain his classification and sentencing as a career offender under USSG 4B1.1. View "United States v. Vanderhorst" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of appellant's motion under 28 U.S.C. 2255 to vacate his conviction on the ground that he received ineffective assistance of counsel in violation of the Sixth Amendment. In this case, appellant's attorney erroneously advised him that, if he pleaded guilty to the lesser included offense of conspiracy to distribute cocaine, deportation was a mere possibility that he could fight in immigration court. Rather, conspiracy to distribute cocaine was an "aggravated felony" under the Immigration and Nationality Act and a noncitizen convicted of such a crime was subject to mandatory deportation. Therefore, counsel's performance was deficient. Furthermore, the court held that appellant was prejudice based on counsel's deficient performance, because the evidence demonstrated a reasonable probability that, had appellant known the true and certain extent of the consequences of his guilty plea, he would have refused it. View "United States v. Murillo" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit affirmed defendant's convictions for possession of marijuana with the intent to distribute and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. The court held that the district court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress physical evidence and statements under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. In this case, the officer had probable cause to stop defendant and the traffic stop lasted a reasonable amount of time. The court also held that the failure to administer a Miranda warning constituted harmless error because there was an overwhelming amount of physical evidence that was properly seized that would still inculpate defendant in the eyes of any reasonable factfinder. View "United States v. Bernard" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit vacated the district court's denial of a petition for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. 2241. Petitioner argued that his rights under the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment will be violated if the government retries him on murder charges in state court. Applying the strictest scrutiny review, the court held that the government failed to satisfy its high burden of showing manifest necessity for a mistrial. In this case, the record demonstrated that the government allowed the jury to be empaneled knowing that the crucial witness might not appear to testify, and the state trial court failed to consider possible alternatives to granting the government's mistrial motion. Accordingly, the court remanded with instructions to grant petitioner habeas relief. View "Seay v. Cannon" on Justia Law