Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Carl Lee McAdory was charged with operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of a controlled substance (OWI) and operating a motor vehicle with a detectable amount of a restricted controlled substance (RCS) in his blood, both as eighth offenses. A jury found him guilty of both charges. At sentencing, the circuit court dismissed the RCS charge and sentenced McAdory only on the OWI charge.The Court of Appeals later reversed McAdory's OWI conviction and remanded the case for a new trial on the OWI charge. Instead of holding a new trial, the circuit court reinstated the previously dismissed RCS charge and guilty verdict, and sentenced McAdory on the RCS charge.The Wisconsin Supreme Court reviewed the case to determine if the circuit court was permitted to reinstate the RCS charge and guilty verdict. The court held that the circuit court had implicit statutory authority under WIS. STAT. § 346.63(1)(c) to reinstate the RCS charge and guilty verdict. The court also concluded that the State did not forfeit its right to seek reinstatement by failing to raise the issue in the initial appeal. Additionally, the court found that reinstating the RCS charge did not violate the Court of Appeals' mandate or McAdory's double jeopardy rights.The Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, allowing the reinstatement of the RCS charge and guilty verdict. View "State v. McAdory" on Justia Law

Deonte Kitchens was convicted of malice murder and other crimes related to the shooting death of Alveno Culver. Kitchens was indicted in November 2015 and tried alone in September 2016, where the jury found him guilty on all counts. He was sentenced to life in prison without parole for malice murder, along with additional consecutive and concurrent sentences for other charges. Kitchens filed a motion for a new trial, claiming, among other things, that his constitutional right to a speedy trial was violated.The trial court denied Kitchens's motion for a new trial, rejecting his speedy-trial claim. Kitchens appealed, arguing that the trial court made a clearly erroneous finding about a material fact and misapplied the law in several significant ways. The trial court found that the delay was due to the complexity of the case and the State's ongoing investigation, and it did not weigh this factor heavily against the State. The court also found that Kitchens never invoked his right to a speedy trial, which was a clearly erroneous finding since Kitchens had filed a constitutional speedy trial demand in August 2014.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the case and found that the trial court made several errors in its analysis. The trial court failed to calculate the length of the delay correctly, conflated the analyses of presumptive prejudice and the length of the delay, and did not consider whether the delay was uncommonly long. The Supreme Court vacated the trial court's order denying Kitchens's motion for a new trial and remanded the case for the trial court to properly address the speedy-trial claim, considering the correct facts and legal analysis. View "KITCHENS v. THE STATE" on Justia Law

Gregory M. Hilton was convicted of malice murder and other crimes after he shot and killed his next-door neighbor, Tommy Allen, on January 29, 2018. Hilton was indicted on charges of malice murder, felony murder, aggravated assault, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. After a series of competency evaluations, Hilton was found competent to stand trial. During the trial, evidence showed that Hilton shot Allen as he was getting into his car. Hilton confessed to the murder and explained that he was in a dire financial situation and felt hopeless. He claimed that Allen had violated him, although he could not specify how.The Chatham County trial court found Hilton guilty on all counts, sentencing him to life in prison for malice murder and an additional five years for the firearm offense. Hilton's motion for a new trial was denied. He appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by not instructing the jury on voluntary manslaughter.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the case. Hilton contended that his statements about feeling threatened by Allen warranted a voluntary manslaughter instruction. The court was skeptical that Hilton's vague statements constituted sufficient evidence of provocation. However, even if the trial court erred in not giving the instruction, the Supreme Court concluded that any error was harmless. The evidence strongly indicated that Hilton acted with malice aforethought due to his financial desperation, and the jury would likely have rejected a voluntary manslaughter claim. Therefore, the Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed Hilton's convictions. View "HILTON v. THE STATE" on Justia Law

Yaquan Chapman and Jordan Watson were convicted for the shooting death of William Trawick and the assault of Aubrey Stansill and Griffin Cleveland. On February 16, 2021, Chapman, Watson, Calvin Rozier, and Carey Williams planned to rob Trawick during a marijuana purchase. They recruited Christian Miles to drive them to Trawick’s home. Watson carried an AR-15, while Rozier and Chapman had handguns. After spending time inside Trawick’s home, Rozier signaled the start of the robbery. Williams retrieved Watson from the car, and the group began shooting, resulting in Trawick’s death and injuries to Stansill and Cleveland. The group fled but returned to retrieve personal items, leading to more gunfire. Chapman was injured, and the group eventually dispersed after seeking medical help for Chapman.A Butts County grand jury indicted Chapman, Watson, Rozier, and Williams. Williams’s case was severed, and he testified for the State. Following a jury trial, Chapman and Watson were found guilty on all counts and sentenced to life in prison without parole for malice murder, plus additional years for aggravated assault. Both filed motions for a new trial, which were denied by the trial court.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the case. Chapman argued trial errors and ineffective assistance of counsel, while Watson contended insufficient evidence and ineffective assistance of counsel. The court found sufficient evidence to support the convictions, noting the testimonies and physical evidence linking both defendants to the crimes. The court also held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in its rulings and that the defendants failed to demonstrate prejudice from their counsel’s actions. Consequently, the Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed the convictions and sentences of both Chapman and Watson. View "CHAPMAN v. THE STATE" on Justia Law

Xavier Adams, Jr. was convicted of felony murder and other crimes related to the shooting death of Sean Peterson. The incident occurred on September 5, 2017, when Peterson, Adams, and Adams's then-wife, Destinee Pannell, were roommates. An argument over rent escalated, leading to both men retrieving firearms. During a struggle, Peterson was shot and killed. Adams attempted to cover up the incident by creating an alibi and preventing Pannell from contacting the police. Adams was indicted on multiple charges, including malice murder and felony murder, and was found guilty by a jury in June 2019.The trial court sentenced Adams to life in prison without parole for felony murder predicated on possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Adams filed a motion for a new trial, which was denied after an evidentiary hearing. He then appealed to the Supreme Court of Georgia, arguing several points, including the trial court's failure to vacate his felony murder conviction under the modified merger rule, mutually exclusive verdicts, improper comments on evidence, and errors in jury instructions.The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed the trial court's decision. The court held that the modified merger rule did not apply because Adams's possession of the firearm was independent of the killing. The court also found that the verdicts were not mutually exclusive, as felony murder predicated on possession of a firearm does not require intent to kill. Additionally, the court concluded that the trial court did not improperly comment on the evidence, did not commit plain error in its jury instructions, and that Adams had affirmatively waived any claim of error regarding the trial court's response to a jury note. View "ADAMS v. THE STATE" on Justia Law

Steven Alford Jacobs was convicted of malice murder and other crimes related to the shooting death of Curtis Pitts. The incident occurred on September 21, 2018, and Jacobs was indicted on multiple charges, including malice murder, felony murder, aggravated assault, armed robbery, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. The jury found Jacobs guilty on all counts, and he was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole for malice murder, among other sentences for the additional charges.Jacobs filed a motion for a new trial, which was denied by the trial court. He appealed, arguing that his constitutional right to be present during a critical phase of the trial was violated when the jury viewed a vehicle connected to the charges without him being present. During the trial, the jury was allowed to view the van involved in the case, and Jacobs's defense objected, questioning whether the van was in the same condition as it was in 2018. The trial court allowed the viewing, and Jacobs's attorneys testified that they had discussed the right to be present with Jacobs, who chose not to attend the viewing.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the case and affirmed the trial court's decision. The court held that even if Jacobs had a right to be present during the jury's viewing of the van, the evidence supported the trial court's conclusion that Jacobs waived that right. The court found that Jacobs's attorneys had informed him of his right to be present, and Jacobs had explicitly declined to attend the viewing. Therefore, the trial court's finding that Jacobs waived his right to be present was not clearly erroneous, and Jacobs was not entitled to a new trial based on his absence during the jury's viewing of the van. View "JACOBS v. THE STATE" on Justia Law

Sidney Kimble was convicted of two drug-trafficking felonies. After serving his sentences, he was found in possession of a handgun and charged under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), which prohibits felons from possessing firearms. Kimble argued that this lifelong prohibition violated his Second Amendment rights.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas denied Kimble's motion to dismiss the indictment, stating that the Supreme Court's decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen did not overrule Fifth Circuit precedent upholding the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1). Kimble then pleaded guilty but retained the right to appeal the constitutionality of the statute.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court held that § 922(g)(1) is constitutional as applied to Kimble. The court reasoned that the Second Amendment allows Congress to disarm individuals deemed dangerous, and drug trafficking is inherently dangerous. The court found that historical and legal precedents support the disarmament of individuals involved in drug trafficking due to the intrinsic violence associated with the drug trade. Therefore, the court affirmed Kimble's conviction under § 922(g)(1). View "USA v. Kimble" on Justia Law

Edison Burgos-Montes, serving a life sentence, sought compassionate release due to serious medical conditions, including severe hypertension and obstructive sleep apnea. He argued that the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) failed to provide adequate treatment for these conditions. Burgos filed a motion with the district court in late 2021, presenting evidence of his ongoing severe hypertension and lack of treatment for his sleep apnea. The district court found that Burgos was receiving adequate medical care and denied his motion without prejudice.Burgos appealed, contending that the district court's finding was clearly erroneous. He pointed to evidence that, nearly a year after his sleep apnea diagnosis, the BOP had not provided him with a CPAP machine, the standard treatment for sleep apnea. The district court had relied on a letter from Dr. Gary Venuto, Clinical Director at FCC Coleman, stating that Burgos was receiving adequate care. However, Burgos argued that this assessment overlooked significant evidence of inadequate treatment.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the district court clearly erred in concluding that Burgos was receiving adequate treatment for his sleep apnea. The appellate court noted that Burgos had not received a CPAP machine or any other treatment for his sleep apnea, despite a diagnosis and a recommendation from an outside cardiologist. The court vacated the district court's order and remanded the case for further proceedings to determine if Burgos had demonstrated an "extraordinary and compelling" reason for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). View "United States v. Burgos-Montes" on Justia Law

Cristian Cabrera-Rivas was convicted by a jury of two drug offenses related to a methamphetamine deal. Cabrera-Rivas, who grew up in Honduras and has limited education and English proficiency, was involved in negotiating a meth deal with a confidential informant named Hector, who was working with the Department of Homeland Security. During the deal, Cabrera-Rivas vouched for the meth supplier, Marco Ramos-Garcia, and was present when the meth was delivered. The police arrested Cabrera-Rivas at the scene and found cash and nearly pure methamphetamine.The United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina found Cabrera-Rivas competent to stand trial based on a government psychologist's evaluation. The court denied his motion for a judgment of acquittal and precluded him from presenting certain affirmative defenses but allowed him to argue entrapment. The jury convicted him on both counts. Post-trial, the district court denied his motions for a new trial and a retrospective competency hearing, finding sufficient evidence for the convictions and no bad faith in the destruction of a recorded interview.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decisions. The appellate court found no clear error in the magistrate judge's competency ruling and held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a second competency hearing. The court also found sufficient evidence to support the convictions, noting that a reasonable jury could infer that Cabrera-Rivas had constructive possession of the meth. The court rejected Cabrera-Rivas's due process claim regarding the destroyed interview recording, as there was no evidence of bad faith. Finally, the court upheld the district court's refusal to instruct the jury on the public authority, innocent intent, outrageous conduct, and entrapment by estoppel defenses. View "US v. Cabrera-Rivas" on Justia Law

Law enforcement agents were surveilling a motel room in Charles Town, West Virginia, to arrest a woman. They saw Dehaven Craig leave the room and drive off. Craig had a significant criminal history, including prior felony convictions. After Craig left, agents entered the motel room, arrested the woman, and found a loaded .380 caliber pistol. The woman claimed the gun belonged to Craig. When Craig returned, officers stopped him and found 0.8 grams of cocaine base in his SUV. Craig was indicted on two drug charges and one charge for unlawful possession of a firearm as a felon.Craig and the government reached a plea agreement where Craig would plead guilty to the firearm charge, and the government would drop the drug charges and recommend a sentence within the Guidelines range. The plea agreement included a stipulation of facts relevant to sentencing. At the plea hearing, the government stated that the stipulation contained Craig’s total relevant conduct. The court accepted the plea, and the probation officer calculated Craig’s Guidelines range. The government sought two enhancements based on facts not included in the stipulation, which Craig objected to, but the probation officer and the district court overruled his objections, resulting in a higher Guidelines range and a 100-month sentence.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the plea agreement stipulated to Craig’s total relevant conduct for sentencing purposes and that the government breached the agreement by seeking enhancements based on facts outside the stipulation. The court held that the government’s duty of candor did not excuse it from its commitments under the plea agreement. The court vacated Craig’s sentence and remanded for resentencing before a different district court judge. View "US v. Craig" on Justia Law