Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The defendant, a citizen of El Salvador, was apprehended in New Mexico in May 2023 and entered a blind plea to reentry of a removed alien subsequent to a conviction for an aggravated felony, violating 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a)(1), (b)(2). His criminal history includes multiple convictions for violent crimes, including manslaughter and battery with intent to commit a crime. The Presentence Investigation Report (PSR) calculated his advisory guidelines range as 21 to 27 months’ imprisonment, but the district court varied upward and sentenced him to 60 months.The United States District Court for the District of New Mexico held a sentencing hearing where both the Government and the defendant requested a within-guidelines sentence. However, the court expressed concern about the defendant's violent criminal history and recent reentry into the United States. The court adopted the PSR's undisputed factual recitations and considered the defendant's arguments regarding his past alcohol and drug consumption, rehabilitation, and medical needs. Ultimately, the court found that an above-guidelines sentence was necessary to reflect the seriousness of the offense, promote respect for the law, provide just punishment, afford adequate deterrence, and protect the public.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that the district court did not commit procedural error by relying on the PSR's undisputed facts and that the 60-month sentence was substantively reasonable given the defendant's violent criminal history and the need to protect the public. The court also found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in varying upward from the guidelines range, as the defendant's criminal history and the seriousness of his reentry offense justified the variance. View "United States v. Cortez" on Justia Law

The case involves an ancillary proceeding under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2(c) and 21 U.S.C. § 853(n). Jesse Dunn filed a third-party petition claiming ownership of a parcel of land in West Jordan, Utah, which the government sought to forfeit in Justin Peck’s criminal case. Peck was convicted of operating an unlicensed money transmitting business. The government alleged Peck held an ownership interest in the land. The district court agreed with Dunn and blocked the forfeiture, leading to the government's appeal.The United States District Court for the District of Utah initially found the land forfeitable based on Peck’s plea agreement. However, during the ancillary proceeding, the district court determined that Dunn had a superior interest in the property. Dunn had purchased the land with untainted funds and later paid off a loan using funds authorized by Peck. The court found that Dunn’s interest in the property was superior to Peck’s at all relevant times under Utah law.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court’s decision, holding that Dunn’s interest in the property was superior to Peck’s and the government’s under 21 U.S.C. § 853(n)(6)(A). The court noted that the government had only sought to forfeit the land and had not pursued other potentially forfeitable property or substitute property. The court also emphasized that the government did not challenge the district court’s findings under Utah law, which governed the determination of property interests in federal forfeiture proceedings. The Tenth Circuit concluded that the district court correctly vacated the preliminary forfeiture order and granted Dunn’s third-party petition. View "United States v. Peck" on Justia Law

Derrick Clark and Shawn Mesner worked for Didion Milling, Inc., a corn milling company. In May 2017, Didion’s grain mill exploded, killing five employees. The Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) investigated and referred Didion for criminal prosecution. The government charged Didion and several employees with federal crimes related to their work at the mill. Clark and Mesner proceeded to trial, challenging the district court’s evidentiary rulings, jury instructions, the indictment, the sufficiency of the evidence, and the constitutionality of their convictions.The United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin convicted Clark on four counts and Mesner on two counts. Clark was found guilty of conspiracy to commit federal offenses, false entries in records, using false documents within the EPA’s jurisdiction, and obstruction of agency proceedings. Mesner was found guilty of conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud and conspiracy to commit federal offenses. Both defendants were sentenced to 24 months’ imprisonment and one year of supervised release.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court vacated Mesner’s conviction on Count 4, remanding for an entry of judgment of acquittal and further proceedings consistent with the opinion. The court affirmed the district court’s evidentiary rulings and jury instructions, as well as Clark’s convictions and Mesner’s conviction on Count 1. The court found sufficient evidence to support the convictions and determined that the jury instructions, when considered as a whole, accurately reflected the law. The court also rejected challenges to the constitutionality of the OSHA regulation involved. View "USA v Mesner" on Justia Law

From 2016 to 2021, Irene Michelle Fike worked at an accounting firm and later as an independent contractor for a client, J.M., and J.M.'s family. Fike used her access to J.M.'s financial accounts to pay her personal credit card bills and make purchases from online retailers. She concealed her fraud by misrepresenting J.M.'s expenditures in financial reports. Fike defrauded J.M. of $363,657.67 between April 2018 and September 2022.Fike pleaded guilty to wire fraud and aggravated identity theft in 2024. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky sentenced her to thirty-six months' imprisonment and three years of supervised release. The court also ordered her to pay $405,867.08 in restitution, which included the principal amount stolen and $42,209.41 in prejudgment interest. Fike appealed, arguing that the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (MVRA) does not authorize prejudgment interest and that the interest calculation was speculative.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the MVRA allows for prejudgment interest to ensure full compensation for the victim's losses. The court found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding prejudgment interest, as it was necessary to make J.M. whole. The court also determined that the district court had a sufficient basis for calculating the interest, relying on J.M.'s declaration of losses, which was submitted under penalty of perjury and provided a reliable basis for the award. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. View "United States v. Fike" on Justia Law

Nicholas Nesdahl, posing as a teenager, used social media to contact several minor girls and solicit sexually explicit images and videos. In one instance, he directed a 13-year-old girl to record herself sexually abusing her 6-year-old stepsister. The abuse was discovered by the older girl’s mother, who notified authorities. Law enforcement identified Nesdahl as the recipient and found he had received similar material from at least seven other minors across the country. Nesdahl was indicted in both the District of North Dakota and the Western District of Pennsylvania, with the latter case transferred to North Dakota. He entered a plea agreement, pleading guilty to two counts from the Pennsylvania indictment (involving receipt of child pornography and sexual exploitation of a minor) and seven counts from the North Dakota indictment (all for sexual exploitation of a minor).The United States District Court for the District of North Dakota adopted the Presentence Investigation Report, which recommended the statutory maximum sentence and identified nine victims, triggering mandatory restitution under 18 U.S.C. § 2259(b)(2). Nesdahl did not object to the restitution order. At sentencing, the court imposed 600 months’ imprisonment and ordered $3,000 in restitution for each of the nine victims.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the restitution order for plain error and found that mandatory restitution under § 2259(b)(2) applies only to certain trafficking offenses, not to convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a). The court held that restitution was only authorized for the two victims associated with the § 2252(a)(2) conviction, not for the other seven victims. The Eighth Circuit vacated the restitution award and remanded for a new order reflecting only the two qualifying victims. The court affirmed the 600-month sentence, finding it substantively reasonable and within the district court’s discretion. View "United States v. Nesdahl" on Justia Law

Heath G. Demerchant was convicted of domestic violence assault (Class C) after a jury trial. The incident involved Demerchant grabbing his wife's throat and hitting her during an argument about a debit card. The State presented testimony from the victim, witnesses, and police officers. Demerchant argued that his actions were justified under the competing harms justification, claiming he was preventing imminent harm to another person.The trial court denied Demerchant's request for a jury instruction on the competing harms justification, finding insufficient evidence of imminent physical harm to another. The jury found Demerchant guilty, and he was sentenced to five years in prison, with all but three years suspended, and four years of probation.The Maine Supreme Judicial Court reviewed the case and affirmed the trial court's decision. The court held that there was no evidence of a specific and imminent threat of physical harm to justify the competing harms instruction. The court emphasized that the justification requires evidence of an imminent threat, which was not present in this case. Therefore, the trial court did not err in denying the requested jury instruction. View "State of Maine v. Demerchant" on Justia Law

The case concerns an incident in which Latif Arthur Lewis was convicted of malice murder and other charges following the shooting death of Randy Killens, Jr. The evidence at trial showed that Lewis and Killens had a physical altercation the day before the shooting, after which Lewis was angry and sent Killens a picture of Killens’s house. The next day, after a phone call in which threats were exchanged, Lewis and Killens agreed to meet for another fight. Lewis’s ex-girlfriend, Cynthia Rowell, drove him to the meeting place. Rowell testified that Lewis exited the car, approached Killens, and shot him in the leg, resulting in Killens’s death from blood loss. Rowell also stated that Lewis threatened her to ensure her silence. No evidence was found that Killens or his companions were armed.After the incident, law enforcement identified Rowell’s involvement and, following her arrest, she provided a statement consistent with her trial testimony. Lewis was apprehended after a brief standoff, and a firearm linked to the shooting was recovered. At trial in the Superior Court of Ware County, a jury found Lewis guilty of all charges except possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, which was not prosecuted. The court sentenced Lewis to life without parole for malice murder and additional consecutive and concurrent sentences for the other offenses. Lewis’s motion for a new trial was denied.On appeal to the Supreme Court of Georgia, Lewis argued that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions, claiming he acted in self-defense, and that his trial counsel was ineffective for not allowing him to review all discovery. The Supreme Court of Georgia held that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, was sufficient for a reasonable jury to find Lewis guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and to reject his self-defense claim. The court also found that Lewis abandoned his ineffective assistance claim by failing to support it with argument or authority. The judgment was affirmed. View "LEWIS v. THE STATE" on Justia Law

On March 18, 2019, a man named Bobby Holt was fatally stabbed in his apartment in Cordele, Georgia. Pereia Boone and Katrea Williams were seen leaving Holt’s apartment around the time of the incident. Witnesses observed an altercation involving Boone and Williams, and police responded to a 911 call reporting the disturbance. Upon arrival, officers detained Boone and Williams, and discovered Holt’s body inside his apartment with multiple stab wounds and a box cutter lodged in his neck. Physical evidence at the scene included bloodstained clothing, a hacksaw blade, and other items linking Boone to the crime. Boone later gave a custodial confession detailing his and Williams’s involvement in planning and carrying out the attack on Holt.A Crisp County grand jury indicted Boone and Williams for malice murder, felony murder, and aggravated assault. Boone was tried separately, and a jury found him guilty on all counts. The Superior Court of Crisp County sentenced Boone to life without parole for malice murder, with a concurrent sentence for aggravated assault. Boone filed a motion for new trial, which was denied after an evidentiary hearing. He then appealed to the Supreme Court of Georgia.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed Boone’s claims that the evidence was insufficient, that improper other-acts evidence was admitted, and that his counsel was ineffective. The court held that the evidence, including Boone’s confession and corroborating physical and testimonial evidence, was sufficient to support the convictions. The court found that any error in admitting Boone’s statement to a detention officer was harmless given the overwhelming evidence of guilt. Finally, the court determined that Boone’s trial counsel was not constitutionally ineffective for failing to object during closing argument, as the decision was a reasonable trial strategy. The convictions were affirmed. View "BOONE v. THE STATE" on Justia Law

Sanchez James was convicted by a jury of murder, aggravated assault, and related charges for fatally shooting Roderick Billups and seriously wounding Keisha Bussey. James, who was wheelchair-bound, claimed self-defense, asserting that Billups was armed and threatened him. However, evidence presented at trial included testimony from Bussey and other witnesses that Billups was unarmed and did not threaten James. Additionally, James admitted during a police interview that he did not see Billups with a gun and acknowledged he was wrong for shooting Billups.The case was initially tried in October 2018 in Fulton County, where James was convicted on all counts. The trial court sentenced him to life in prison for malice murder, with additional concurrent and consecutive sentences for the other charges. James filed a motion for a new trial, which was denied by the trial court in October 2024. He then filed a timely notice of appeal.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the case. James argued that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions and that the trial court erred by allowing a witness, Shatora Jones, to invoke her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, which he claimed violated his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation. The court found that the evidence was sufficient for a rational jury to convict James beyond a reasonable doubt. The court also determined that there was no plain error in allowing Jones to invoke her Fifth Amendment right, as James did not object or request a voir dire of Jones during the trial.The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding James's convictions and sentences. View "JAMES v. THE STATE" on Justia Law

In November 2020, Ladarion Tijuan Coston and Marcus Yancey were involved in the shooting death of Caleb Simmons during a drug sale at an apartment complex in DeKalb County, Georgia. Witnesses heard the gunshot and saw Yancey and another man, later identified as Coston, fleeing the scene. Surveillance footage captured the incident, showing Coston shooting Simmons. Evidence included phone records, social media activity, and witness testimonies linking Coston to the crime.A DeKalb County jury found Coston and Yancey guilty on all counts, including malice murder, felony murder, armed robbery, aggravated assault, and firearm possession charges. Coston was sentenced to life in prison without parole for murder and armed robbery, plus additional consecutive sentences for firearm possession. Coston filed a motion for a new trial, which was denied by the trial court.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's decision. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support Coston's convictions, including direct evidence from the surveillance video and witness testimonies. The court also found no merit in Coston's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, as his trial counsel's decisions were deemed reasonable. Additionally, the court ruled that the trial court did not err in admitting certain evidence, including an excited utterance by a witness. Finally, the court rejected Coston's claim of cumulative error, concluding that he failed to demonstrate multiple errors that would warrant a new trial. View "COSTON v. THE STATE" on Justia Law