Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence, which was imposed more than ten years ago in 2008. The Fourth Circuit vacated and remanded, holding that defendant's prior South Carolina felony conviction for assaulting, beating, or wounding a law enforcement officer while resisting arrest was not a violent felony predicate under the Armed Career Criminal Act because it could be committed without the use, attempted use, or threatened use of violent physical force. Therefore, defendant did not have the three predicate convictions required to be properly designated as an armed career criminal. View "United States v. Jones" on Justia Law

Petitioner sought habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. 2254 after he was convicted of crimes related to the murder of his ex-girlfriend and sentenced to death. The district court denied or stayed all of petitioner's claims, except Ground Six, which asserted a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel resulting from trial counsel's failure to investigate potentially mitigating evidence of Fetal Alcohol Syndrome (FAS).The Fourth Circuit affirmed and held that counsel's investigation into potentially mitigating evidence of FAS failed to meet an objective standard of reasonableness. Therefore, the postconviction relief court erred in concluding that petitioner had failed to establish deficient performance by counsel. Furthermore, the district court correctly determined that petitioner had established prejudice under Strickland v. Washington. Therefore, the postconviction relief court's prejudice determination was contrary to or an unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent, or an objectively unreasonable factual determination. View "Williams v. Stirling" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motions to suppress evidence obtained by law enforcement officers during their encounter with him prior to his arrest. The court held that the district court did not clearly err in finding that the officers received voluntary consent from defendant's fiancee to enter his residence. Therefore, the entry did not violate the Fourth Amendment.The court also held that defendant's freedom of action was not curtailed to a degree associated with formal arrest, and thus he was not in custody and Miranda warnings were not required. Accordingly, the district court did not err in concluding that defendant was not subject to custodial interrogation in violation of the Fifth Amendment. View "United States v. Azua-Rinconada" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of petitioner's federal habeas petition, claiming actual innocence of his first degree murder conviction. The court held that no reasonable juror would likely find petitioner guilty beyond a reasonable doubt if it knew the high likelihood that he was misidentified both outside and inside the courtroom as a murder suspect because of impermissibly suggestive procedures. The court held that petitioner has overcome the exacting standard for actual innocence through sufficiently alleging and providing new evidence of a constitutional violation and through demonstrating that the totality of the evidence, both old and new, would likely fail to convince any reasonable juror of his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. View "Finch v. McKoy" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit held that the government did not breach its plea agreement with defendant by disclosing relevant and accurate information to the sentencing court. However, the court held that the government's conduct at the sentencing hearing denied him the benefit of the bargain. In this case, the government crossed the line and breached its plea agreement when it failed at sentencing to honor its drug conduct stipulation. Accordingly, the court vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Edgell" on Justia Law

Brandishing a firearm in connection with a "crime of violence," as defined in 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(3)(B), is unconstitutionally vague. The Fourth Circuit reversed defendant's conviction under section 924(c)(3) and held that neither the statutory language nor controlling precedent offered any support for the Government's proposed reinterpretation of "crime of violence." In this case, the text, structure, and context of section 924(c)(3)(B) clearly mandated use of the ordinary-case categorical approach, as do all relevant precedents. The court held that section 924(c)(3)(B) effectively required judges to define the scope of criminal liability, and it directed them to do so using an unmoored, subjective abstraction that deprived the public of fair notice. View "United States v. Simms" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit vacated defendant's sentence for two counts of receipt of child pornography and one count of possession of child pornography. The court held the district court failed to address defendant's non-frivolous mitigation arguments and to properly explain its rationale for his term of confinement and his special conditions. The court remanded for the district court to provide a sufficient explanation for the significant deprivation of liberty defendant faced as a result of his criminal conduct. Finally, the court made no assessment regarding the fairness or propriety of defendant's term of confinement or special conditions of supervised release. View "United States v. Ross" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit affirmed defendant's 240 month sentence for willfully shooting and killing the victim while he was unarmed and fleeing arrest. The court held that the district court did not clearly err in making its factual findings and correctly determined, based on those findings, that second-degree murder was the proper cross-reference. In this case, the district court did not reversibly err by inferring defendant's malice from the facts it found credible and by determining that defendant's malice was not negated by sudden quarrel or heat of passion. The court also held that the district court did not plainly err by applying a two-level sentencing enhancement for obstructing justice. View "United States v. Slager" on Justia Law

After defendant pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, the district court sentenced him to 120 months in prison. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment and held that the district court did not err in declining to run its sentence concurrently with the anticipated state sentence. The district court found that defendant's offense conduct was extremely serious, and explained that it would not order its sentence to run concurrently with the anticipated state sentence in light of this seriousness, remarking that a lengthy term of imprisonment was necessary in this case. View "United States v. Lynn" on Justia Law

The offense of New York first-degree robbery, in violation of New York Penal Law 160.15, qualifies as a crime of violence for purposes of the USSG 4B1.1 career offender enhancement. The Fourth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence as a career offender and held that New York statutory robbery, irrespective of the degree of the offense, is a crime of violence, because it necessarily involves the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another. View "United States v. Hammond" on Justia Law