Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The case concerns a habeas corpus petition filed by an individual convicted and sentenced to death for the willful, deliberate, and premeditated murder of Janine Lee in California in 1993. The petitioner had worked with the victim and, after planning the crime, killed her for financial gain and subsequently attempted to cash her checks. Forensic evidence and the petitioner’s confession corroborated his involvement, including details about the killing, use of martial arts training, and subsequent events. Expert testimony at trial highlighted the petitioner’s mental health issues, drug use, and troubled social history, but the jury found him guilty and sentenced him to death.Following his conviction and sentencing, the California Supreme Court affirmed the judgment on direct appeal and summarily denied habeas relief. The United States District Court for the Central District of California denied the federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, but granted a certificate of appealability for claims of ineffective assistance of counsel during the penalty phase. The petitioner sought to expand the certificate to include additional claims related to competency and juror bias.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the district court’s denial of habeas relief. Applying AEDPA deference, the Ninth Circuit held that the California Supreme Court could have reasonably determined that the petitioner failed to make a prima facie case for relief on all penalty-phase ineffective assistance subclaims, including alleged failures to investigate, prepare witnesses, and rebut aggravating evidence. The court also rejected cumulative error and competency claims, and denied a certificate of appealability for juror bias. The panel granted a certificate for one penalty-phase competency subclaim but affirmed its denial. The district court’s denial of habeas corpus relief was affirmed. View "COMBS V. BROOMFIELD" on Justia Law

The appellant was convicted of delivery of methamphetamine, second or subsequent offense, and received a suspended sentence with three years of supervised probation. Conditions of probation included obeying Department of Corrections rules and completing any treatment required by his probation officer. After seven months, the State filed a petition to revoke probation, alleging that the appellant left required inpatient treatment at Southwest Counseling Service without completing it. The probation officer’s affidavit detailed that he left treatment against staff advice, had missed office visits, continued to use methamphetamine, and had fled from the probation office, resulting in new criminal charges.The District Court of Carbon County held a probation revocation hearing. Although the appellant initially admitted violating probation, he later claimed his attendance at inpatient treatment was voluntary. The court proceeded to an evidentiary hearing, where the probation officer testified about the appellant’s ongoing drug use, failure to attend required evaluations, and his departure from treatment. The court found by a preponderance of the evidence that he violated probation by not completing required treatment, revoked his probation, and imposed the underlying six to ten-year prison sentence, citing willful violations and unsuitability for continued probation. The appellant appealed, arguing that his due process rights were violated when the State relied on other uncharged probation violations during the dispositional phase.The Supreme Court of Wyoming reviewed the case under the plain error standard because the due process argument was not raised below. The court held there was no due process violation, explaining that written notice is required only for the specific alleged probation violation that forms the basis for revocation, not for other conduct considered during the dispositional phase. The court affirmed the district court’s order revoking probation and imposing the prison sentence, finding no clear or unequivocal rule of law was violated. View "Bustos v. The State of Wyoming" on Justia Law

The defendant was convicted after a jury trial of aggravated eluding, reckless driving, driving under suspension, and failing to stop at a stop sign, all arising from an incident in Sioux Falls, South Dakota. Law enforcement responded to a call about a family dispute, with the caller reporting that the defendant was driving a red Toyota Camry. Officers observed the vehicle and identified the defendant as the driver, who then fled at high speed through residential neighborhoods. The defendant later testified that he was not involved, did not own or drive the Camry, and denied fleeing from police.The Circuit Court of the Second Judicial Circuit, Minnehaha County, presided over the trial. Prior to trial, the defendant moved to exclude statements related to the BOLO alert and the caller’s association of him with the Camry, arguing hearsay and character evidence grounds. The court denied these motions, reasoning that the BOLO and information about the vehicle were relevant to the officers’ actions and not unduly prejudicial. During trial, officers testified about the BOLO and caller’s statements, and defense counsel made a continuing objection referencing Crawford v. Washington. The jury returned guilty verdicts on all counts, and the defendant was sentenced with all terms suspended.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota reviewed the case. The defendant argued that admitting the caller’s statement violated his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation and constituted inadmissible hearsay. The court held that the defendant had not properly preserved the Confrontation Clause issue for appeal, as he failed to provide sufficient facts or request a determination about whether the caller’s statement was testimonial. Regarding hearsay, the court found that, even if error occurred, it was not prejudicial because the officers’ identification testimony and dash camera videos provided strong, independent evidence of the defendant’s identity. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. View "State v. Clifford" on Justia Law

The defendant was involved in a series of criminal incidents beginning in late December 2023, including an alleged domestic assault, multiple vehicle thefts, assaulting a law enforcement officer with a vehicle, fleeing police, violating no-contact orders, drug possession, and failing to appear in court. These incidents led to six separate felony cases in Lawrence and Meade Counties. In each case, the defendant entered into plea agreements, resulting in guilty pleas to several counts in exchange for the dismissal of other charges and enhancements. The sentences imposed by the circuit court were largely concurrent, except for a consecutive sentence in the Meade County case.Following his convictions and sentencing, the defendant appealed, asserting that his guilty plea in the primary Lawrence County case was not knowing and voluntary. He claimed that both his counsel and the presentence investigation report (PSI) led him to believe he would be eligible for parole after serving a portion of his sentence, when in fact, state law rendered him ineligible for parole on the aggravated assault against a law enforcement officer charge. He further argued that, if his plea was invalid, the sentences in his other Lawrence County cases should also be vacated under the sentencing package doctrine.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota reviewed the totality of the circumstances and found that the plea was knowing and voluntary. The court held that neither the circuit court nor counsel was required to inform the defendant of collateral consequences such as parole eligibility, and inaccuracies or misunderstandings about parole did not render the plea involuntary. Because the defendant did not prevail on his primary claim, his argument regarding the sentencing package doctrine was moot. The Supreme Court affirmed all of the circuit court’s judgments. View "State v. Ware" on Justia Law

An individual was convicted by a jury in Charles Mix County, South Dakota, for failing to appear at a pretrial conference in a pending felony case. In a separate incident, he pleaded guilty to simple assault following an altercation with another inmate at the county jail. He appealed both convictions, raising jurisdictional arguments based on his status as an enrolled member of the Yankton Sioux Tribe. He contended that both the courthouse and the jail are located in Indian country, thus depriving the state court of jurisdiction. He also challenged the denial of his motion to dismiss under the 180-day rule, the admission of certain evidence, and the denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal in the failure to appear case.The First Judicial Circuit Court denied his motions to dismiss, finding that neither the courthouse nor the jail was located in Indian country as defined by federal law. The court attributed most of the pretrial delay to the defendant’s own actions, such as refusing to participate in proceedings and to communicate with counsel, and determined the 180-day period for trial had not expired. The court also admitted evidence over his objections, including a bond form and testimony by his prior attorney, and allowed a jury to decide the failure to appear charge.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota reviewed both appeals together. It held that the land in question does not qualify as Indian country under 18 U.S.C. § 1151(a)-(c), reaffirming precedent that previously allotted lands that have passed into non-Indian ownership are not Indian country. The court declined to overrule its earlier decision in Bruguier v. Class. It further held that the 180-day rule was not violated, the challenged evidence was properly admitted, and sufficient evidence supported the jury’s verdict. The Supreme Court of South Dakota affirmed both convictions. View "State v. Winckler" on Justia Law

A law enforcement officer in Ramsey County, North Dakota, stopped a driver after observing her vehicle cross the center line. The driver, accompanied by her two minor children, exhibited physical signs of nervousness and possible impairment. The officer determined her license was suspended and observed further signs suggesting possible drug use, which included shaking, pacing, and bloodshot, constricted eyes. After the driver admitted to having smoked marijuana earlier in the day, the officer detained her, contacted the children’s parents to pick them up, and requested the assistance of a K-9 unit. Field sobriety tests were conducted, which did not indicate alcohol impairment. When the K-9 arrived, the dog alerted to the presence of drugs, leading to a search of the vehicle that uncovered drug paraphernalia and marijuana.The District Court of Ramsey County denied the defendant’s motion to suppress her statements and the evidence discovered during the stop, finding that the officer did not subject her to unlawful custodial interrogation and that the search of her vehicle was supported by probable cause under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement. The defendant entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving the right to appeal the suppression ruling.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of North Dakota reviewed whether the district court erred in denying the suppression motion. The Supreme Court held that the defendant was not subjected to unlawful custodial interrogation requiring Miranda warnings at the time she admitted to drug use, the officer did not impermissibly prolong the stop to facilitate the K-9 arrival, and probable cause supported the subsequent vehicle search. The Court further upheld the search of her person at the detention facility as incident to a lawful arrest. The Supreme Court affirmed the amended criminal judgment. View "State v. Cooper" on Justia Law

Jacob Parlin was arrested after law enforcement, investigating a narcotics operation, intercepted communications implicating him in drug transactions. The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) began wiretapping a suspected dealer’s phone, capturing conversations among Parlin, the dealer, and a third party, which discussed drug sales and pricing strategies. Following these intercepts, officers stopped Parlin's vehicle and discovered nearly two pounds of pure methamphetamine, along with drug paraphernalia and a small quantity of drugs indicative of personal use.A federal grand jury indicted Parlin on conspiracy to distribute and possession with intent to distribute fifty grams or more of methamphetamine, as well as substantive distribution and possession charges. At trial in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Parlin objected to a police officer's testimony about the typical amount of methamphetamine held by users versus distributors, arguing the officer was giving undisclosed expert testimony. The court allowed the testimony, finding it was based on the officer’s personal observations. Parlin was convicted by a jury on both counts. He then moved for acquittal or a mistrial, asserting the testimony was improper; the district court denied these motions, determining the testimony was appropriately limited and other evidence supported the verdict.Parlin appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, contending the district court erred by admitting the officer’s opinion testimony and that, without it, the evidence was insufficient to prove intent to distribute. The First Circuit held that, even if admitting the testimony was error, it was harmless given the overwhelming evidence of Parlin's intent to distribute, including recorded phone calls and the large quantity of drugs. The court affirmed Parlin’s conviction on both counts. View "United States v. Parlin" on Justia Law

Border Patrol officers apprehended the defendant, a Mexican citizen, near Sunland Park, New Mexico. He admitted to being in the United States without authorization. The government charged him with illegal reentry after removal, under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1326(a) and (b). The defendant had previously been deported multiple times since 2008 and had three prior convictions for illegal reentry between 2011 and 2014. He also had a conviction for animal cruelty after killing a young horse in 2013 and a history of law enforcement encounters involving allegations such as domestic violence and substance offenses, though not all resulted in convictions.The United States District Court for the District of New Mexico presided over the case. The defendant entered a fast-track plea agreement, resulting in a calculated sentencing guideline range of four to ten months, or without the fast-track plea, eight to fourteen months. Before sentencing, the district court indicated a possible upward variance. During the hearing, the government sought a high-end sentence, and the defendant asked for twelve to eighteen months, but no more than twenty-four months. The district court rejected the plea agreement, allowed the defendant to proceed, and ultimately imposed a twenty-four-month sentence, citing the defendant’s repeated illegal entries, criminal history, and the animal cruelty conviction. The district court gave a detailed explanation referencing the § 3553(a) sentencing factors.On appeal, before the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, the defendant challenged the substantive reasonableness of his sentence, arguing the district court lacked compelling justification for the upward variance and that the sentence created unwarranted disparities. The Tenth Circuit held that the district court did not abuse its discretion, found the detailed explanation sufficient, and concluded the upward variance was justified in light of the defendant’s history and the § 3553(a) factors. The court affirmed the sentence. View "United States v. Zamora-Guerra" on Justia Law

The petitioner was convicted in Oklahoma state court of several serious crimes, including first-degree rape of a child under fourteen, forcible sodomy, lewd or indecent acts to a minor, rape by instrumentation, and commission of a lewd act in front of a minor. He asserted membership in the Kickapoo Tribe and claimed the crimes occurred in Indian country, which would affect the state court’s jurisdiction. The specific area in question was formerly part of the Citizen Potawatomi reservation.After conviction, the petitioner challenged the state court’s jurisdiction in the Oklahoma state courts, raising various arguments about the land’s status. He also brought claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, denial of due process, and violations of federal law. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals rejected his jurisdictional arguments and other claims. He then sought habeas relief in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. It held that Congress had clearly disestablished the Citizen Potawatomi reservation in 1891, citing statutory language and Supreme Court precedent. The court found that the petitioner had waived arguments regarding the land as a dependent Indian community or an Indian allotment by failing to properly preserve those claims. Additionally, the court determined that the petitioner’s other claims (including those alleging violations of the Indian Child Welfare Act, ineffective assistance, improper questioning, and due process violations) were procedurally barred as they had not been properly exhausted in state court and did not meet the requirements for overcoming an anticipatory procedural bar. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of habeas relief. View "Wahpekeche v. Pettigrew" on Justia Law

A bank robbery occurred at City National Bank in Oklahoma City on November 7, 2022. During the incident, two eyewitnesses—a teller and a customer—testified that the robber brandished what appeared to be a real firearm, describing it as a “Glock” or “Glock-like handgun.” Surveillance video supported their accounts, but law enforcement did not recover the weapon. The defendant, Akin Wofford, was charged with armed bank robbery and with possessing and brandishing a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence.The case was tried in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma. At trial, the government relied on eyewitness testimony and video evidence to prove the existence of a firearm. The jury was instructed, without objection, that the government did not need to produce the actual weapon and that “witness identification of the weapon as a firearm is sufficient.” The jury convicted the defendant on both counts.On appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, the defendant argued that the jury instruction on Count Two violated his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights by relieving the government of its burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he possessed and brandished a “firearm.” The Tenth Circuit reviewed the claim for plain error because no objection was raised at trial. The court held that, when read as a whole, the instructions did not misstate the law or mislead the jury, and that the challenged instruction did not direct the jury to automatically accept witness testimony as sufficient. The Tenth Circuit concluded there was no plain error and affirmed the conviction in full. View "United States v. Wofford" on Justia Law