Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

In 2005, John Lozano pleaded guilty to four federal felony charges, including conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and firearm offenses. Due to prior felony convictions, including a Missouri marijuana conviction, Lozano was classified as a career offender under the federal sentencing guidelines, resulting in an enhanced sentence of 322 months. In 2022, Missouri adopted a constitutional amendment legalizing certain marijuana offenses and requiring the expungement of related nonviolent convictions. In 2023, Lozano’s prior marijuana conviction was vacated by a Missouri court under this amendment.After the expungement, Lozano filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri, seeking to vacate his federal sentence. He argued that the vacated marijuana conviction should not have counted toward his career offender status. The government moved to dismiss, contending that Lozano’s motion was “second or successive” because he had previously filed § 2255 motions in 2009 and 2016, and that the expungement did not affect his guidelines calculation because it was not based on legal error or innocence. The district court granted the motion to dismiss on both grounds.Reviewing the case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that Lozano’s motion was not “second or successive” under § 2255 because his claim was newly ripe, arising only after his conviction was expunged in 2023. Nonetheless, the court concluded that the Missouri expungement order did not warrant resentencing. Under the federal guidelines, only convictions vacated due to innocence or legal error are excluded from career offender calculations; Lozano’s expungement was not based on such grounds. Accordingly, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Lozano’s § 2255 motion. View "Lozano v. United States" on Justia Law

The case concerns a defendant who, during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, submitted multiple fraudulent applications for Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) and Economic Injury Disaster Loans (EIDL) using false information and forged documents. The defendant, with family members, obtained over $650,000 in loan proceeds by falsely representing the status and finances of various companies. The fraudulent scheme was uncovered when a lender alerted authorities to suspicious details in one application. Law enforcement executed a search warrant at the defendant’s home, conducted an interview, and discovered evidence of fraud. After initial plea negotiations failed, the defendant traveled to Colombia and did not return voluntarily, prompting an international effort that resulted in his apprehension and extradition to the United States.The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota presided over pretrial matters, including the defendant’s motions to suppress statements made during the home search, requests for new counsel, and pretrial detention issues. The court denied motions to suppress, finding the defendant was not in custody during the interview, and conducted extensive Faretta hearings to confirm the defendant’s voluntary waiver of counsel and decision to proceed pro se. The defendant’s requests for continuances and additional trial accommodations were denied, and the trial proceeded with standby counsel reappointed partway through. The jury convicted the defendant on all counts, and the court applied a sentencing enhancement for obstruction of justice based on the defendant’s actions in fleeing to Colombia.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s rulings. The appellate court held that the defendant was not in custody during the initial interview, his waiver of counsel was knowing and voluntary, the denial of continuances and trial accommodations did not deprive him of a fair trial, and the obstruction-of-justice sentencing enhancement was properly applied. The district court’s judgment was affirmed. View "United States v. Kaeding" on Justia Law

The defendant lived with his parents in Fargo, North Dakota. One evening, after his mother found him inhaling compressed air, an argument ensued. During the dispute, the defendant left the room and returned with a gun, firing it into the ceiling. He refused to relinquish the firearm, pointed it at himself, and then at his father. Law enforcement, including SWAT negotiators, were called and, after several hours, the defendant surrendered. A search of the home revealed several firearms, including a Polymer80 pistol with an attached Glock switch (a machinegun conversion device), a silencer, and various firearm parts and ammunition in the basement, which was the defendant's bedroom.The United States District Court for the District of North Dakota reviewed the case. The defendant was charged with possession of a machinegun and possession of a firearm silencer. He moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing it failed to state the essential elements of the offenses, specifically the knowledge requirement. The district court denied the motion. At trial, a jury convicted the defendant on both counts, finding sufficient evidence of his knowledge regarding the characteristics of the firearms.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed whether the indictment was legally sufficient and whether the evidence supported the convictions. The court held that the indictment sufficiently alleged the required knowledge element by tracking the statutory language and including phrases such as “knowingly possess.” The court also found that circumstantial evidence and the defendant’s statements supported the jury’s finding that he knew the pistol was capable of automatic fire and that he knowingly possessed the silencer. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment, upholding both convictions. View "United States v. Opdahl" on Justia Law

Peace officers developed probable cause to believe that controlled substances were being distributed from a house in Des Moines. After conducting multiple controlled buys, officers obtained a premises search warrant for the house. On the morning the warrant was executed, Andrew Porter arrived at the house carrying a backpack. About forty minutes later, officers entered and found Porter in the living room; the backpack was in a corner, not within his immediate reach. During the search, Porter repeatedly denied ownership of or knowledge about the backpack, both when questioned outside and inside the house. Officers searched the backpack and found methamphetamine, marijuana, and drug paraphernalia. Porter was arrested and charged with several drug offenses.Porter filed a motion to suppress the evidence obtained from his backpack, arguing that the search violated his constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment and the Iowa Constitution. The Iowa District Court for Polk County denied the motion after reviewing evidence, including bodycam footage. Porter sought and was granted discretionary review to challenge this ruling.The Supreme Court of Iowa addressed whether the federal or state constitutional right to be free from unreasonable searches prohibits officers executing a search warrant from searching a container on the premises, such as a backpack, capable of holding evidence described in the warrant, when the container is not in a person’s physical possession. The court held that the search of the backpack was within the scope of the premises warrant because it was not in Porter’s physical possession at the time of the search and was a plausible repository for the evidence sought. The court further found that Porter’s repeated denials of any connection to the backpack constituted abandonment, negating any privacy interest. The court affirmed the district court’s denial of the motion to suppress. View "State v. Porter" on Justia Law

The case concerns the conviction of an individual for first degree murder following the death of his former partner. On June 19, 2023, the defendant and the victim, who shared two sons, spent the day at a YMCA with their children. An argument occurred between the defendant and the victim, leading to further tension. That evening, the victim returned home with her children, and the next morning, the victim’s daughters found her unresponsive in her bed, with evidence of a fatal gunshot wound. The investigation revealed no murder weapon or direct physical evidence linking the defendant to the crime, but circumstantial evidence included text messages suggesting ongoing conflict, the defendant’s suspicious movements according to location data, and a statement reportedly made by the defendant to his brother confessing to the shooting.The Lowndes County Circuit Court held a jury trial where the State presented primarily circumstantial evidence, including testimony about the defendant’s ability to enter locked doors and his proximity to the victim’s home at critical times. After the State rested, the defendant’s motion for a directed verdict was denied. The jury found him guilty of first degree murder, and he was sentenced to life imprisonment. Post-trial motions for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial were also denied.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed whether the evidence was sufficient to prove deliberate design and whether the verdict was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. The Supreme Court held that the circumstantial evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the State, was sufficient for a rational juror to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court further concluded that the verdict did not represent an unconscionable injustice. The conviction and sentence were affirmed. View "House v. State" on Justia Law

A man was pursued by police after driving a car rented by his mother in a reckless manner to avoid a checkpoint, ultimately crashing in a residential area and fleeing the scene. His passenger, apprehended and interviewed the same night, identified him as the driver. The car contained cocaine, marijuana, and prescription bottles in his name. The defendant was later arrested after hiding from law enforcement in his home. At trial, the State presented testimony from law enforcement and the passenger identifying him as the driver. The defense called alibi witnesses who claimed he was at home during the incident, and the defendant himself denied involvement.The Circuit Court of Madison County found the evidence sufficient to convict him of cocaine possession and felony evasion. The court admitted his prior felony convictions for impeachment purposes after conducting an analysis under Mississippi Rule of Evidence 609(a)(1)(B) and the Peterson factors, and sentenced him as a nonviolent habitual offender and subsequent drug offender. The defendant appealed, arguing the evidence was insufficient, the prior convictions were improperly admitted, the flight instruction was erroneous, and the habitual offender sentence was incorrect. The Court of Appeals affirmed the sufficiency of the evidence but reversed the convictions, finding the trial court’s Rule 609(a)(1)(B) analysis inadequate and the issue not procedurally barred.On certiorari, the Supreme Court of Mississippi found the challenge to the admission of prior convictions was procedurally barred due to the lack of a specific objection at trial. The court further held that the trial judge properly applied the Rule 609(a)(1)(B) standard and the Peterson factors, and that the flight instruction and habitual offender sentence were not erroneous. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ finding on sufficiency but reversed its decision to grant a new trial, reinstating and affirming the trial court’s judgment and sentences. View "Gardner v. State" on Justia Law

A criminal complaint was filed against an individual in July 2024, alleging multiple counts of lewd acts, forcible lewd acts, and continuous sexual abuse of four minors, all of whom are his grandchildren. The prosecution also alleged a multiple victim enhancement. At an initial arraignment, the magistrate court set bail and imposed protective orders. Later, the prosecution moved to have the defendant held without bail, citing the danger he posed to the community. At a Humphrey hearing, the prosecution presented testimony and evidence suggesting repeated sexual abuse over many years, including admissions by the defendant. The magistrate court found this evidence reliable and determined that nonfinancial conditions of release would not protect the public or victims, ordering the defendant held without bail.The defendant challenged the no-bail order in the Superior Court of Fresno County through a petition for writ of habeas corpus. He argued the magistrate court abused its discretion, particularly in considering the prosecution’s request for remand without bail absent a change in circumstances, and asserted there was insufficient evidence to support a finding of substantial likelihood of great bodily harm. The superior court issued an order to show cause on these specific issues but ultimately denied the petition after considering the parties’ responses.Upon further review, the California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, was directed by the California Supreme Court to address whether Penal Code section 292 constitutes an impermissible legislative extension of the constitutional terms “acts of violence” and “great bodily harm,” and whether, absent section 292, clear and convincing evidence supported denial of bail. The appellate court held that section 292 is a valid legislative implementation, not an invalid extension, of the bail exception in article I, section 12 of the California Constitution. The court further found that substantial evidence supported the finding that the defendant’s release would pose a substantial likelihood of great bodily harm, and denied the petition for writ of habeas corpus. View "In re Bergstrom" on Justia Law

Four women incarcerated at the Huron Valley Correctional Facility in Michigan suffered from persistent, painful rashes between 2016 and 2019. Despite repeated complaints, medical staff—contracted through Corizon Health—failed to diagnose scabies, instead providing ineffective treatments and attributing the condition to environmental factors like improper laundering. It was only after an outside dermatologist intervened that scabies was correctly identified, prompting prison-wide treatment efforts. However, these efforts were delayed and, in some cases, inadequate, resulting in prolonged suffering for the affected inmates.After their experiences, the four women filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan against multiple defendants, including high-level Michigan Department of Corrections officials and Wayne State University medical officers, alleging Eighth Amendment violations and state-law negligence. The district court found that the women’s complaint plausibly alleged “clearly established” Eighth Amendment violations by all defendants and denied the officials’ request for qualified immunity. The court also rejected a claim of state-law immunity, finding that the officials could be the proximate cause of the inmates’ injuries under Michigan law.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the district court’s denials. The Sixth Circuit held that existing precedent did not “clearly establish” that the non-treating prison officials’ reliance on contracted medical providers was so unreasonable as to violate the Eighth Amendment. Thus, it reversed the district court’s denial of qualified immunity on the federal damages claims. However, the appellate court affirmed the denial of state-law immunity, finding the plaintiffs adequately pleaded proximate cause under Michigan law. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with these holdings. View "Machelle Pearson v. MDOC" on Justia Law

A state trooper investigating a stolen motorcycle observed two individuals, including the defendant, standing near two motorcycles without license plates in a hotel parking lot. One motorcycle, recently spray-painted, matched the description of a vehicle reported stolen. The trooper encountered the individuals inside a nearby convenience store, ordered them to the ground, and placed both in handcuffs. After identifying them, the trooper learned that the defendant was on felony probation and had previously signed a waiver allowing warrantless searches. Following authorization from the defendant’s probation officer, the trooper searched the defendant’s backpack, discovering illegal drugs and paraphernalia. The defendant was subsequently charged with multiple drug offenses.The defendant moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that the initial handcuffing amounted to an unlawful de facto arrest in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The District Court for the Fourth Judicial District, Ada County, agreed that the detention was an illegal arrest and rejected the State’s assertion that handcuffing was justified by officer safety. However, the district court denied suppression, holding that the evidence was admissible under the attenuation doctrine, which allows admission if intervening circumstances sufficiently separate the evidence from the illegality. The defendant entered a conditional guilty plea, preserving his right to appeal.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Idaho first affirmed the district court’s ruling based on the inevitable discovery doctrine but granted rehearing. In its subsequent opinion, the Idaho Supreme Court clarified that, although the initial seizure was unreasonable and the attenuation doctrine did not apply, the evidence would have been inevitably discovered through lawful investigative steps absent the unlawful arrest. Thus, the court affirmed the district court’s denial of the suppression motion and upheld the defendant’s conviction, holding that the inevitable discovery doctrine was dispositive. View "State v. Campbell" on Justia Law

A man on probation was investigated for allegedly diverting customer payments from his employer to himself. Law enforcement learned that, as a condition of his probation, he had agreed to allow searches of his person, residence, and electronic devices, but his probation terms specifically excluded “financial accounts or transactions” from warrantless searches. During the investigation, officers arrested him, seized his phone, and searched several banking applications, including Apple Pay. Information from Apple Pay revealed the existence of certain bank accounts, which led officers to obtain a warrant to search those accounts and gather further evidence.In the Superior Court of Orange County, the defendant moved to suppress the evidence obtained from the bank accounts and to quash the warrant, arguing that the Apple Pay search exceeded the scope of his probation terms and that the subsequent warrant was based on unlawfully obtained information. The prosecution argued the motion was more properly a motion to traverse the warrant, contending that Apple Pay was not a “financial account” and that the warrant was supported by probable cause. The trial court denied the suppression and quash motions.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case. It held that the defendant’s motion should be treated as a motion to traverse the warrant, as the warrant affidavit omitted material information about the probation search limitations. The court found that Apple Pay is a “financial account” under the plain meaning of the probation terms. Because the information about the bank accounts was obtained through an unlawful search of a financial account, it was improperly included in the warrant application. The appellate court ordered the trial court to vacate its earlier order and grant the motion to suppress the evidence obtained from the bank accounts. View "Meiner v. Superior Court" on Justia Law