Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The case concerns Dominique Richardson, who was convicted of malice murder and related offenses following the shooting death of Taylor Holcombe. Richardson and Holcombe were in a relationship, and on the day of the incident, Richardson, Holcombe, and Cedric Porter spent time together, including picking up Porter and stopping at a gas station. Porter testified that Richardson suddenly pulled a gun on Holcombe while driving, after which Holcombe fled the car and Richardson shot her. Richardson then threatened Porter and later took steps to cover up the crime, including burning Holcombe’s car. Evidence at trial included Porter’s eyewitness account, testimony from a medical examiner, cell phone location data, and statements from a friend, Dontavious Davis, to whom Richardson allegedly confessed.A DeKalb County jury found Richardson guilty on all counts, and the trial court sentenced him to life without parole for malice murder, with additional time for firearm possession. The aggravated assault count merged, and the felony murder count was vacated by operation of law. Richardson’s motion for a new trial was denied by the trial court, and he appealed to the Supreme Court of Georgia.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed Richardson’s claims that the evidence was insufficient and that the trial court erred in admitting an audio recording of a witness’s prior statement. The Court held that the evidence, including direct eyewitness testimony and corroborating evidence, was sufficient to support the convictions under both federal and Georgia law. The Court also found that any error in admitting the audio recording was harmless given the strength of the other evidence. The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed Richardson’s convictions. View "RICHARDSON v. THE STATE" on Justia Law

The case concerns a shooting that occurred in Bibb County, Georgia, in July 2021. The defendant called 911 and reported that he had shot his roommate and friend. When law enforcement arrived, the defendant made several unsolicited statements admitting to the shooting and expressing that he had wanted to kill the victim. Physical evidence and testimony established that the victim was shot in the back from a distance, and the autopsy confirmed homicide as the cause of death. The State also introduced evidence of the defendant’s prior felony conviction.A Bibb County grand jury indicted the defendant for malice murder, felony murder predicated on possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. At trial in the Superior Court of Bibb County, the jury found the defendant guilty on all counts. The trial court sentenced him to life in prison for malice murder, merged the possession count into the felony murder count, and then vacated the felony murder count. The defendant filed a motion for new trial, which was denied after a hearing. He then appealed to the Supreme Court of Georgia.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the defendant’s claim that his trial counsel was ineffective for allegedly failing to properly advise him of his right to testify. The Court held that the record did not show that counsel advised the defendant not to testify, nor that any such advice would have been unreasonable. The Court found no evidence of deficient performance by counsel and concluded that the defendant failed to meet his burden under Strickland v. Washington. Accordingly, the Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed the judgment. View "WOODS v. THE STATE" on Justia Law

The defendant, a noncitizen, was charged in Los Angeles County with carjacking, second degree robbery, and resisting an executive officer. The jury found him guilty of carjacking and found true the allegation that he personally used a deadly weapon, but acquitted him of robbery. He had previously pleaded guilty to resisting an executive officer. He was sentenced to a total of 12 years in prison. Years later, after being released from criminal custody, the defendant faced removal proceedings in immigration court based on his conviction, and he sought to vacate his conviction under Penal Code section 1473.7, arguing he had not understood the immigration consequences of going to trial or accepting a plea.The defendant filed a motion in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County to vacate his conviction, providing evidence of indigency and making a prima facie showing for relief. He requested appointment of counsel for the hearing. The trial court denied his request, relying on People v. Fryhaat, and reasoning that appointed counsel was only required if the moving party was in federal immigration custody and unable to attend the hearing. The court proceeded with an evidentiary hearing and ultimately denied the motion, finding no evidence that an immigration-neutral plea offer had been made.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Five, reviewed the trial court’s denial of appointed counsel. The appellate court held that the right to appointed counsel in section 1473.7 proceedings attaches when an indigent defendant makes a prima facie showing of entitlement to relief and the court proceeds to an evidentiary hearing, regardless of whether the defendant is in federal immigration custody. The appellate court reversed the trial court’s order and remanded for further proceedings, including consideration of the request for appointed counsel and a new hearing on the merits of the section 1473.7 motion. View "P. v. Gutierrez" on Justia Law

The defendant was indicted for aiding and abetting possession with intent to distribute 40 grams or more of a mixture containing fentanyl. He entered into a written plea agreement with the government, in which he agreed to plead guilty. In exchange, the government stipulated to certain sentencing factors, including the drug weight used to calculate the base offense level and that the defendant was a manager or supervisor of criminal activity involving five or more participants. The agreement reserved the government’s right to present evidence, make a sentencing recommendation, and clarified that it was not promising to seek a downward departure.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina accepted the guilty plea. At sentencing, the government moved for both an upward and a downward departure or variance from the Guidelines range, citing the defendant’s criminal history and role in the offense. The district court applied both departures and sentenced the defendant to 234 months’ imprisonment. The defendant did not object at sentencing but later appealed, arguing that the government breached the plea agreement by failing to request a below-Guidelines sentence and by making arguments inconsistent with the stipulations regarding drug weight and his role.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case for plain error, as the defendant had not raised these arguments below. The court held that the plea agreement did not require the government to seek a below-Guidelines sentence or prohibit it from moving for both upward and downward departures. The court also found that, while some of the government’s arguments at sentencing created tension with the stipulations, the agreement’s language did not clearly prohibit such arguments. Therefore, the court concluded there was no plain error and affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "US v. Wilson" on Justia Law

The case concerns a defendant who was convicted of bank fraud and bank robbery. The key facts involve two separate crimes: first, a violent home invasion in which the defendant’s father-in-law was severely beaten and forced to write a $23,000 check, which the defendant later cashed; and second, a bank robbery in which the defendant threatened a teller with death, claiming cartel affiliation, and used a handwritten note. Law enforcement found a note resembling the robbery note during a search of a car registered to the defendant’s wife, which became a central issue in the case.The United States District Court for the District of New Mexico heard the case. The defendant moved to suppress the evidence found in the car, arguing that his wife lacked authority to consent to the search. The district court found that the wife had actual authority over the car and denied the motion. After conviction, the district court imposed a 312-month sentence, a significant upward variance from the guideline range of 46 to 57 months, citing the brutality of the crimes and the defendant’s history of dishonesty. The defendant appealed, challenging both the search and the reasonableness of the sentence.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. It held that the wife had actual authority to consent to the car search, making the search constitutional. The court also found that the district court had properly considered the statutory sentencing factors, including the avoidance of unwarranted disparities, and that the sentence was both procedurally and substantively reasonable. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s rulings and the sentence. View "United States v. Candelaria" on Justia Law

Two individuals operated a large-scale heroin trafficking operation, transporting significant quantities of heroin from New Jersey to Pennsylvania. Law enforcement, using information from an informant, initiated an investigation that included wiretaps on the suspects’ phones. The wiretap application was signed by the First Deputy Attorney General, acting on the authority of the Pennsylvania Attorney General, who was out of the country at the time. The investigation led to the arrest of both men, the seizure of heroin, cash, and firearms, and the discovery of their involvement in witness tampering, including the murder and attempted murder of two women connected to the case.The United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania denied the defendants’ motion to suppress the wiretap evidence, finding that the First Deputy Attorney General was properly authorized under state law to submit the application. After a jury trial, both defendants were convicted of drug and firearm offenses, with one also convicted of witness tampering resulting in death and attempted murder. The court sentenced one defendant to 380 months in prison and the other to life imprisonment plus additional consecutive terms. Both appealed, raising issues regarding the wiretap’s legality, alleged constructive amendment of the indictment, jury instructions, sufficiency of the evidence, and sentencing errors.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the convictions and sentences for one defendant in full. For the other, the court affirmed all convictions and sentences except for the consecutive 25-year sentence imposed for using a firearm to commit murder under 18 U.S.C. § 924(j). The court held that, in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Lora v. United States, a consecutive sentence is not mandatory under § 924(j), and thus vacated and remanded for resentencing on that count. All other claims for relief were rejected. View "USA v. Perrin" on Justia Law

Two defendants, both members of a criminal street gang, were involved in a shooting incident outside a liquor store in Hemet, California, in December 2020. They were convicted by a jury of attempted murder, active participation in a criminal street gang, unlawful possession of a firearm, assault with a semiautomatic firearm, and willful discharge of a firearm at an occupied vehicle. The jury also found true several gang and firearm enhancements. In a subsequent bench trial, the court found that both defendants had prior 2015 convictions for unlawful possession of a firearm with a gang enhancement, and one defendant had an additional prior conviction for attempted burglary. These prior convictions were used to impose enhanced sentences under California’s Three Strikes law and the five-year prior serious felony enhancement.On appeal, after the passage of Assembly Bill 333, which narrowed the definitions and requirements for gang enhancements under Penal Code section 186.22, the Attorney General conceded that the new law applied retroactively to nonfinal judgments. The California Court of Appeal reversed the convictions and enhancements related to gang participation and remanded for possible retrial under the new standards. However, the Court of Appeal held that Assembly Bill 333 did not apply to the determination of whether the defendants’ 2015 convictions qualified as prior serious felonies or strikes, reasoning that such application would improperly amend voter-approved initiatives that set the list of serious felonies as of a specific date.The Supreme Court of California reviewed the case and held that Assembly Bill 333 does apply to the determination of whether a prior conviction qualifies as a serious felony under section 1192.7(c)(28) for purposes of the Three Strikes law and prior serious felony enhancements. The Court concluded that current law governs this determination, and that such application does not unconstitutionally amend any ballot initiative. The Court vacated the true findings on the prior serious felony convictions and remanded for retrial under the amended law. View "P. v. Fletcher" on Justia Law

Thomas Lamont Davis was investigated after selling methamphetamine to a confidential source on two occasions in March 2022. Law enforcement searched his residence in Des Moines, Iowa, and found firearms, large quantities of methamphetamine, cash, and drug paraphernalia. Davis was later involved in two separate high-speed chases while attempting to evade arrest, during which he possessed methamphetamine and cash. In one incident, Davis struggled with officers and bit one officer’s finger, causing injury that required stitches.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa presided over Davis’s trial. Davis moved to exclude evidence of his prior Iowa felony convictions for drug and firearm offenses, but the district court denied the motion and admitted the convictions with a limiting instruction. A jury found Davis guilty on all counts, including drug distribution, possession with intent to distribute, and firearm offenses. At sentencing, the district court applied a two-level enhancement for maintaining a drug premises and a six-level enhancement for assaulting a law enforcement officer, resulting in a 360-month prison sentence.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed Davis’s challenges to the admission of his prior convictions and the sentencing enhancements. The court held that the prior convictions were properly admitted for permissible purposes such as knowledge and intent, and the limiting instruction mitigated any risk of unfair prejudice. The court also found that the evidence supported the enhancements for maintaining a drug premises and for assaulting an officer, and that there was no impermissible double counting. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Davis" on Justia Law

Carlos Mercado was originally convicted in federal court of conspiracy to distribute heroin and sentenced to 120 months’ imprisonment followed by five years of supervised release, with conditions including a prohibition on committing new offenses. After completing his prison term, Mercado began supervised release in June 2021. In November 2024, he was arrested by Hartford police and charged under Connecticut law with drug offenses after narcotics and cash were found in his possession. The United States Probation Office petitioned the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut to issue a summons for a hearing on Mercado’s alleged violation of supervised release.The District Court for the District of Connecticut questioned whether it had statutory authority to detain Mercado pending revocation proceedings, citing the Non-Detention Act, which requires statutory authorization for detention of U.S. citizens. The court concluded that neither 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a)(1) nor Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1 provided such authority, reasoning that Mercado had not been “found guilty of an offense” with respect to the alleged violation and was not “awaiting imposition or execution” of a sentence. The court denied the government’s motion to detain Mercado, and Mercado moved to dismiss the government’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that it had jurisdiction to review the district court’s order under 18 U.S.C. § 3145(c) and 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The Second Circuit further held that 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a)(1) authorizes a district court to detain a supervisee charged with a supervised release violation pending revocation proceedings, because the supervisee was previously found guilty and is awaiting execution of a portion of the original sentence. The appellate court vacated the district court’s order and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Mercado" on Justia Law

Police officers in Charlotte, North Carolina, received a tip from a confidential informant that a man matching the defendant’s description was riding a bicycle and carrying an illegal firearm. Officers located the defendant, who took a shortcut on a dirt path marked “No Trespassing.” After stopping him, officers asked for his identification, which he provided, and requested that he step off his bicycle and remove his backpack. The officers conducted a pat-down with the defendant’s permission. When asked for consent to search his backpack, the defendant initially agreed, then declined several times, expressing fear. Eventually, after further questioning, the defendant agreed to open his backpack, revealing a handgun. The defendant was arrested, and additional contraband was found.The Superior Court, Mecklenburg County, denied the defendant’s motion to suppress the evidence, finding that the officers had returned his identification and that he freely consented to the search. The court also found that the officers had reasonable suspicion and probable cause for the stop. The defendant entered an Alford plea to the charges and was sentenced to prison. The North Carolina Court of Appeals vacated the conviction, holding that the trial court’s finding that the officers returned the identification was not supported by competent evidence, and that the defendant’s consent to the search was not voluntary under the totality of the circumstances.The Supreme Court of North Carolina reviewed the case. It held that competent evidence supported the trial court’s finding that the officers returned the defendant’s identification. The court further held that, under the totality of the circumstances, the defendant voluntarily consented to the search of his backpack. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals, reinstating the trial court’s denial of the motion to suppress. View "State v. Wright" on Justia Law