Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

In 1995, Glen Edward Rogers murdered Tina Marie Cribbs in Hillsborough County, Florida. Rogers was convicted of first-degree murder, armed robbery, and grand theft of a motor vehicle. He was sentenced to death, and his conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal. Rogers has since filed multiple postconviction motions, all of which have been denied.Rogers' fourth successive postconviction motion raised three claims: (1) he was unconstitutionally deprived of the right to challenge his conviction and sentence due to a conflict of interest with his counsel, (2) newly discovered evidence of his childhood sexual abuse and trafficking would result in a life sentence on remand, and (3) Florida’s lethal injection procedures are cruel and unusual due to his porphyria diagnosis. The postconviction court summarily denied these claims as untimely, procedurally barred, and/or meritless.The Supreme Court of Florida reviewed the case and affirmed the postconviction court's denial. The court found that Rogers' conflict-of-counsel claim was procedurally barred and without merit, as there was no actual conflict of interest. The newly discovered evidence claim was also found to be procedurally barred and meritless, as the evidence could have been discovered with due diligence. Lastly, the court held that Rogers' method-of-execution claim was untimely and meritless, as he failed to demonstrate that Florida’s lethal injection protocol would cause him substantial and imminent risk of serious illness and needless suffering, and he did not identify a viable alternative method of execution.The Supreme Court of Florida denied Rogers' motion for a stay of execution and his request for oral argument, affirming the summary denial of his fourth successive postconviction motion. View "Rogers v. State" on Justia Law

Jesse Taylor, Jr. was charged with murder and aggravated assault after his case was transferred from juvenile court to district court in October 2022. In August 2023, a seven-day jury trial was held, and Taylor was found guilty of both charges. He was sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of parole for the murder charge and a concurrent five-year sentence for the aggravated assault charge.Taylor appealed the judgment, raising three issues: the jury's verdict was not unanimous, the district court abused its discretion by denying the defense the ability to properly cross-examine a State's witness, and the court imposed an illegal sentence. The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case. The court found that the jury's verdict was unanimous, as confirmed by the district court on multiple occasions, including a hearing held after the case was remanded. The court also determined that Taylor failed to preserve the issues regarding the evidentiary rulings for appeal, as he did not make an offer of proof or inform the district court of the desired actions or objections.Regarding the sentence, the court noted that Taylor was sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of parole, requiring a determination of his life expectancy. The district court used the age of 15 to determine Taylor's life expectancy, as there was no exact calculated life expectancy for the age of 18 in the mortality table. The North Dakota Supreme Court concluded that the district court acted within the limits of the statute and did not rely on any impermissible factors in determining the sentence.The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, upholding Taylor's conviction and sentence. View "State v. Taylor" on Justia Law

In September 2020, Jesse Fairley was observed by law enforcement conducting hand-to-hand drug transactions in a convenience store parking lot. When officers approached and searched the vehicle Fairley had been using, they found crack cocaine, marijuana, cash, and two loaded firearms. Fairley was charged and convicted of possessing with intent to distribute crack cocaine, being a felon in possession of firearms, and possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. He received a thirty-year sentence and appealed his conviction.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio denied Fairley's motions for acquittal, finding sufficient evidence for the jury to convict him. Fairley raised five issues on appeal, including the sufficiency of the evidence, the jury instructions on third-party guilt, the cumulative effect of evidentiary rulings, alleged improper communications with a defense witness, and improper closing remarks by the prosecution.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's decision. The court found that there was substantial evidence to support Fairley's convictions, including his proximity to the drugs and firearms, his observed drug transactions, and his evasive behavior. The court also determined that the jury instructions were not misleading, the evidentiary rulings were within the court's discretion, and there was no substantial interference with the witness's decision to testify. Additionally, the court found that the prosecution's closing remarks did not constitute plain error or prosecutorial misconduct. View "United States v. Fairley" on Justia Law

On May 14, 2022, the Lake Charles Police Department responded to a call about gunshots on N. Lyons Street. Officers approached Kirk August's home and found him in his backyard. A neighbor informed the officers that she had seen August firing a handgun. The officers conducted a protective sweep of the backyard, finding shell casings and a sign with bullet holes. They then conducted a protective sweep of the home, using keys retrieved from a car in the driveway, where they also found methamphetamine and ammunition. A search warrant was later obtained, leading to the discovery of firearms and more ammunition in the home.August was charged with possession of a firearm by a convicted felon under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The district court denied his motion to suppress the evidence obtained from the searches. A magistrate judge recommended denying the motion, and the district court adopted this recommendation. August pled guilty but reserved the right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress. He was sentenced to 63 months in prison and three years of supervised release.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the protective sweeps of the backyard and home were justified by exigent circumstances, as the officers had reasonable suspicion of danger. The court also held that the independent source doctrine applied, as the search warrant was supported by probable cause independent of any potentially tainted evidence. The court affirmed the district court's decision, allowing the evidence obtained from the searches to be used against August. View "USA v. August" on Justia Law

Erika Marie Plancarte pleaded guilty to conspiracy to transport an alien into the United States. The plea agreement required the government to recommend a 90-day imprisonment sentence. At the San Ysidro Port of Entry, Plancarte illegally transported a woman and her three children into the U.S., using false documents. She was arrested after admitting to the smuggling.The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California received a presentence report (PSR) that contained ambiguities about the relationship between the woman and the children. Plancarte requested a non-custodial sentence, while the government adhered to the plea agreement, recommending 90 days of custody. The government also clarified the PSR's ambiguities and highlighted Plancarte's criminal history and recidivism, arguing that previous sentences had not deterred her behavior. Plancarte argued that the government breached the plea agreement by including additional commentary and referencing her criminal history.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the government did not implicitly breach the plea agreement. The government’s references to Plancarte’s criminal history and its clarification of the PSR were permissible and did not undermine the plea agreement. The court found that the government’s comments were made in good faith and were consistent with advocating for the agreed-upon sentence. The court also noted that the government was not required to present mitigating evidence. Consequently, the appellate waiver in the plea agreement was enforced, and the appeal was dismissed. View "USA V. PLANCARTE" on Justia Law

Brandon Urias was charged with a misdemeanor for allegedly violating NRS 484E.040 after crashing into a parked car in a Walmart parking lot and failing to leave a note with his contact information. The justice court found Urias guilty and imposed a fine. Urias appealed to the district court, arguing that NRS 484E.040 is not enforceable on private property and that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to convict him. The district court denied his appeal, concluding that the statute's language did not limit its enforceability to specific locations.Urias then filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court of Nevada. The Supreme Court reviewed the case to determine whether NRS 484E.040 applies to private property. The court examined the statutory language and legislative history, concluding that NRS 484E.040 does not apply to private property, such as parking lots, but is limited to highways to which the public has access or highways to which persons have access as invitees or licensees.The Supreme Court of Nevada held that NRS 484E.040 was not enforceable against Urias for the incident in the Walmart parking lot. Consequently, the court granted Urias's petition and directed the district court to vacate its order denying Urias's appeal and to proceed in a manner consistent with the Supreme Court's opinion. View "URIAS VS. DIST. CT." on Justia Law

Bryant Ross Montoya was convicted of felony property destruction after he intentionally rammed his truck into another vehicle driven by Samuel Kremer. The incident stemmed from a prior altercation between the two men, who were former friends. On the day of the incident, their accounts differed, with Montoya claiming self-defense after Kremer allegedly hit his truck first, while Kremer and an independent witness, Vincent Sandberg, reported that Montoya was the aggressor.The District Court of Laramie County instructed the jury on self-defense, using instructions that addressed the use of deadly force. Montoya did not object to these instructions during the trial. The jury found Montoya guilty, and he was sentenced to a prison term of two to four years, suspended in favor of three years of probation. Montoya appealed, arguing that the district court erred by instructing the jury on self-defense using deadly force rather than non-deadly force.The Wyoming Supreme Court reviewed the case and found that although the record contained the allegedly erroneous instructions, Montoya did not demonstrate material prejudice. The court noted that the State's argument focused on Montoya being the aggressor, supported by testimony from Kremer and Sandberg. The court concluded that there was no reasonable probability that the jury verdict would have been different without the alleged error in the instructions. Consequently, the court affirmed Montoya's conviction. View "Montoya v. The State of Wyoming" on Justia Law

In 2018, Jodeci K. Norvel entered a negotiated guilty plea and received an eighteen-year sentence for battery in the first degree and possession of firearms by certain persons. His sentencing order included a note that he had two prior residential burglaries and should serve flat time. Norvel later filed a petition for declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, and a writ of mandamus, arguing that under Act 683 of 2023, he was eligible for parole because his sentencing order did not expressly designate that he was sentenced under the relevant statute.The Pulaski County Circuit Court granted Norvel’s petition, finding that Act 683 applied to him and that he was eligible for parole. The court determined that Norvel’s sentencing order did not contain an express designation under Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-93-609(b)(2)(B), as required by the statute.The Arkansas Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the circuit court’s decision. The court held that the notation on Norvel’s sentencing order did not constitute an express designation that he was sentenced under section 16-93-609. The court emphasized that the statute requires a clear and unmistakable reference to the specific section, which was not present in Norvel’s sentencing order. The court also rejected the appellants’ argument that the circuit court’s interpretation of Act 683 led to absurd results contrary to legislative intent, citing its previous decision in Rodgers v. Arkansas Parole Board. Consequently, the Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s order, granting Norvel the relief he sought. View "ARKANSAS POST-PRISON TRANSFER BOARD v. NORVEL" on Justia Law

Amber Dawn Waterman was charged in Benton County, Arkansas, with two counts of premeditated and deliberated capital murder for the deaths of Ashley Bush and her unborn child, Valkyrie Grace Willis. Waterman had previously pleaded guilty in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri to kidnapping resulting in death and kidnapping resulting in the death of an unborn child. She was sentenced to two life sentences in federal court.In the Benton County Circuit Court, Waterman entered pleas of not guilty and former jeopardy, and filed a motion to dismiss based on double jeopardy under Ark. Code Ann. § 5-1-114 and the Arkansas Constitution. The circuit court denied her motion, finding that the state charges were not barred by double jeopardy.The Supreme Court of Arkansas reviewed the case and affirmed the circuit court's decision. The court held that the federal and state charges each required proof of different facts and were intended to prevent substantially different harms or evils. The federal charges required proof of kidnapping and interstate transport, while the state charges required proof of premeditated and deliberated intent to cause death. Therefore, the prosecution in Arkansas was not barred by Ark. Code Ann. § 5-1-114.Additionally, the court declined Waterman's request to interpret the Arkansas Constitution's double jeopardy provision more broadly than the federal provision, thereby upholding the dual sovereignty doctrine. The court concluded that the Arkansas Constitution does not prohibit Waterman’s state prosecution under these circumstances. The decision of the Benton County Circuit Court was affirmed. View "WATERMAN v. STATE OF ARKANSAS" on Justia Law

James P. Ellis, an inmate at Marion Correctional Institution, has been incarcerated since his 1995 convictions for aggravated burglary and aggravated murder. He contends that the Ohio Adult Parole Authority unlawfully corrected an error in his sentencing entry and has been using this correction in his parole hearings. Ellis sought a writ of prohibition from the Tenth District Court of Appeals to prevent the parole authority from conducting future parole screenings and to compel it to contact the sentencing court for corrective procedures.The Tenth District Court of Appeals dismissed Ellis's complaint. The court reasoned that Ellis did not sufficiently demonstrate that the parole authority lacked jurisdiction or relied on erroneous information. Additionally, the court noted that compelling the parole authority to contact a court is beyond the scope of relief provided by a writ of prohibition.The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed the case and affirmed the Tenth District's dismissal. The court held that the parole authority has jurisdiction to hold parole proceedings for all parole-eligible inmates, including Ellis. The court found that Ellis's parole eligibility is determined by statute, and the parole authority's actions were authorized by law. Consequently, Ellis failed to prove the elements required for a writ of prohibition. The court also noted that Ellis's request to compel the parole authority to contact the sentencing court was not appropriate for a writ of prohibition, which is typically used to prevent unauthorized actions rather than to compel specific actions. View "State ex rel. Ellis v. Adult Parole Auth." on Justia Law