Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Steven Bradford was initially convicted in federal court for his involvement in a heroin-trafficking conspiracy that resulted in a teenager’s death. After serving a lengthy prison sentence, he began a five-year term of supervised release. Within a year and a half, Bradford was arrested twice: first for possessing a firearm as a felon and having an open alcohol container, and later for drag racing while intoxicated, which led to a fatal multi-vehicle crash. These incidents constituted serious violations of the terms of his supervised release, including prohibitions against criminal activity, firearm possession, alcohol use, and frequenting bars.Following these events, Bradford’s federal probation officer sought revocation of his supervised release in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The court initially paused revocation proceedings to allow state charges to proceed but later held a hearing after the second arrest. Bradford admitted to some violations, and the district judge found that he committed others based on testimony and evidence. The probation officer recommended a reimprisonment term at the upper end of the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range (14 months), while the government sought the statutory maximum (36 months). The judge imposed the maximum, emphasizing the severity of Bradford’s violations and his criminal history.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed Bradford’s challenge to the length of his reimprisonment. The court held that district judges have broad discretion in supervised release revocation proceedings and are not bound by the Guidelines or probation officer recommendations. The Seventh Circuit found that the district judge adequately explained the sentence and properly weighed permissible factors, including the seriousness of the violations. The court concluded that the 36-month sentence was not plainly unreasonable and affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Bradford" on Justia Law

The defendant was involved in a fatal shooting that followed a drug transaction in Providence, Rhode Island, on April 22, 2021. He was a longtime drug dealer and, on the night in question, sold cocaine to a woman with her boyfriend (the decedent) present. During and after the transaction, the decedent became agitated, shouting threats at both the defendant and the woman. The confrontation escalated when the decedent approached the defendant’s car, yelled additional threats, and appeared to hold an object the defendant believed to be a firearm. The defendant then shot the decedent in the chest, fled the scene, and later disposed of evidence.The case was tried in the Providence County Superior Court. Before trial, the defendant pleaded guilty to two firearm-related charges that were not presented to the jury. At trial, he asserted self-defense and requested that the jury be instructed on the lesser-included offense of voluntary manslaughter, arguing that the evidence supported a finding that he acted in the heat of passion due to adequate provocation. The trial justice denied this request, finding the defendant’s demeanor and testimony showed he was calm and not provoked to the extent required by law. The jury convicted the defendant of second-degree murder and discharging a firearm during a crime of violence. The trial justice imposed consecutive life sentences and additional terms for the firearm charges.The Supreme Court of Rhode Island reviewed the case. It held that there was insufficient evidence to warrant a voluntary manslaughter instruction because the facts did not support finding adequate provocation or sudden heat of passion. The court further declined to consider the defendant’s argument regarding the excessiveness of his sentence because he failed to seek sentence revision under Rule 35 in the Superior Court. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of conviction. View "State v. Xaykosy" on Justia Law

The case concerns a probationer who was suspected of stealing from an auto business by having customers pay him directly instead of the business. Law enforcement, during their investigation, learned the individual was on probation with terms allowing searches of his person, residence, and electronic devices, but explicitly excluding “medical/legal information, financial accounts or transactions, or any data created before the acceptance of this probation grant.” After arresting him, officers searched his cell phone and accessed his Apple Pay account, finding two linked debit cards (Chase and Credit One). This discovery led them to seek and obtain a warrant to search those bank accounts, but the application for the warrant omitted the limitation in the probation terms excluding “financial accounts.”Following these events, the Superior Court of Orange County denied a motion to suppress evidence obtained from the bank accounts and to quash the warrant. The superior court concluded that the search of the Apple Pay account was permitted under the probation search terms, and did not address whether the motion should be considered a motion to traverse the warrant.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three reviewed the matter. The appellate court held that the motion should be treated as a motion to traverse the search warrant, because the claim was that the warrant application omitted material information regarding the probation search limitation. The court found that an Apple Pay account qualifies as a “financial account” within the ordinary meaning of the probation terms, and thus was excluded from warrantless probation searches. The court concluded that the officer’s omission in the warrant application was, at minimum, reckless, and that the omission was material to the finding of probable cause. Accordingly, the appellate court directed the superior court to vacate its previous order and grant the motion to suppress the evidence obtained from Chase and Credit One. View "Meiner v. Super. Ct." on Justia Law

Three individuals were convicted under a federal law that prohibits those with prior misdemeanor convictions for domestic violence from possessing firearms or ammunition. Each had a history of violent conduct against intimate partners, and after their misdemeanor convictions under state law, they were later found in possession of firearms, leading to federal charges under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9).Prior to this appeal, each defendant was convicted in a United States District Court—one in the Northern District of California and two in the District of Alaska—of violating § 922(g)(9). The convictions were based on evidence that after their state-level domestic violence misdemeanor convictions, they knowingly possessed firearms. Following their convictions, the defendants appealed, arguing that § 922(g)(9) is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment, both on its face and as applied to them.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the appeal. The court applied the framework established by New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen and United States v. Rahimi, and concluded that the plain text of the Second Amendment covers the appellants’ conduct but that the government demonstrated § 922(g)(9) is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. The court rejected both the facial and as-applied constitutional challenges, holding that Congress may categorically disarm those convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence without individualized findings of future dangerousness. The court further held that § 922(g)(9) is constitutional as applied to these appellants and affirmed the judgments of conviction. View "USA V. MARTINEZ" on Justia Law

Police in Gautier, Mississippi, used an automatic license plate reader (LPR) system to identify a vehicle associated with Elijah Porter, who was wanted on an outstanding warrant for aggravated assault. Officer Hoggard received an LPR alert, confirmed the vehicle’s connection to Porter through a computer check, and conducted a traffic stop. During the stop, Hoggard detained Porter and, while interacting with him, observed the barrel and slide of a firearm, as well as a silver automatic conversion switch, protruding from under the driver’s seat. The officer later retrieved the firearm—a Glock pistol equipped with a machinegun conversion switch—during an inventory search of the vehicle.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi denied Porter’s motions to suppress both the LPR-derived vehicle location data and the firearm, ruling that use of the LPR data did not constitute a search under the Fourth Amendment, that the stop was supported by reasonable suspicion, and that the plain view and inevitable discovery doctrines applied to the firearm. The court also rejected Porter’s argument that 18 U.S.C. § 922(o), which prohibits possession of a machinegun, was unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. Porter waived a jury trial and was found guilty in a bench trial.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s rulings. It held that use of the LPR system to identify Porter’s vehicle did not violate the Fourth Amendment because there was no reasonable expectation of privacy in movements on public roads or in license plate information, and the LPR data was not as comprehensive as cell-site location data. The court further held that the traffic stop was supported by reasonable suspicion, the firearm was lawfully seized under the plain view doctrine, and Fifth Circuit precedent foreclosed Porter’s Second Amendment challenge to § 922(o). The conviction was affirmed. View "United States v. Porter" on Justia Law

The defendant, employed as a daycare worker, took and distributed a sexually explicit photograph of an infant in her care. She pleaded guilty to one count of production and attempted production of child pornography under a plea agreement that included a waiver of her right to appeal, except in certain circumstances. At sentencing, the government advocated for the statutory maximum sentence and, in doing so, referenced the defendant’s sex as making her conduct more shocking and suggested that a lengthy sentence would prevent her from having children in the future. The district court ultimately imposed the statutory maximum sentence but did not mention the defendant’s sex as a reason for the sentence.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas accepted the guilty plea and sentenced the defendant to 360 months in prison, 10 years of supervised release, and restitution. The defendant did not object to the prosecutor’s comments regarding her sex at the sentencing hearing. She appealed, arguing that the government’s statements violated her Fifth Amendment right to equal protection and that the appeal waiver in her plea agreement did not bar her appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and applied the plain-error standard, as the defendant had not objected to the statements in the district court. The appellate court concluded that the district court did not rely on the prosecutor’s references to the defendant’s sex when imposing sentence. Because the defendant could not show that the government’s statements affected her substantial rights or that a structural error had occurred, the Fifth Circuit held that there was no reversible error. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "United States v. Hamilton" on Justia Law

The case arose after the defendant was charged in July 2020 with felony driving under the influence (DUI) in Missoula County, Montana. He entered a plea agreement with the State, pleading guilty to the DUI charge in exchange for dismissal of another case. The parties jointly recommended a 13-month commitment to the Department of Corrections with specific placement and a subsequent suspended sentence. Although they agreed the court could impose the mandatory minimum $5,000 fine, the defendant’s financial circumstances showed he could not pay most of it, as he subsisted primarily on Social Security and had very limited resources.The Fourth Judicial District Court, Missoula County, presided over sentencing. The defendant’s counsel requested the fine be stricken due to the defendant’s inability to pay. The court conducted an inquiry into his financial circumstances, then imposed the $5,000 fine but credited $100 for jail time and suspended the remaining $4,900, contingent on the defendant’s compliance with probation. The court’s judgment reflected an order for the defendant to pay $0 of the fine.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Montana considered whether the District Court legally imposed the mandatory minimum fine by suspending the portion the defendant could not pay. The Supreme Court overruled its prior holding in State v. Gibbons, which had found such mandatory minimum fines facially unconstitutional. The Court held that sentencing courts must impose the statutory minimum fine but are required, under the ability-to-pay statute, to suspend any portion the defendant is unable to pay. The Court concluded that, when the fine is imposed and suspended consistent with the defendant’s ability to pay, the statutory scheme is constitutional, and the sentence is legal. The Supreme Court of Montana affirmed the District Court’s judgment. View "State v. Cole" on Justia Law

The case concerns a defendant who was arrested on March 18, 2022, after leading police on a high-speed chase in a stolen vehicle while intoxicated. He was charged with several felonies, including felony driving under the influence, criminal endangerment, and theft. At the time of the incident, he was already subject to release conditions in other pending cases. Following his arrest, he was unable to post a substantial bond and was detained until he became a Department of Corrections inmate in November 2022 for an unrelated case. Over the following months, the scheduling of his trial was affected by continuances, plea negotiations, overlapping trial dates with his other pending cases, and court docket priorities.The Twenty-First Judicial District Court denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of a speedy trial after approximately 476 days elapsed between his arrest and his no-contest plea. The District Court attributed a significant portion of the delay to institutional reasons but also found that the defendant was responsible for numerous delays, including his requests for continuances, his actions during plea negotiations, and his acquiescence in having multiple cases scheduled for trial on the same dates. The District Court concluded that the defendant’s right to a speedy trial had not been violated.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the District Court’s decision de novo, applying the four-factor test set out in State v. Ariegwe. The Supreme Court held that although the delay was lengthy and primarily institutional, the defendant was responsible for significant portions of it, and his conduct did not display a genuine desire for a speedy trial. The Court further found that the defendant suffered no actual prejudice from the delay. The Supreme Court affirmed the District Court’s denial of the motion to dismiss for lack of a speedy trial. View "State v. Larson" on Justia Law

A vehicle reported stolen was located by police, who discovered Alejandro Flores-Reyes had been driving it and was in possession of its keys. Flores-Reyes stated he had purchased the car and that the items inside belonged to him. Police contacted the registered owner, who consented to a search of the vehicle. The officers, without Flores-Reyes’ consent, conducted a search, manipulated a concealed panel, and found a closed zippered pouch in a hidden compartment. Upon opening the pouch, they found pills suspected to contain fentanyl. The officers then obtained warrants based on this discovery and, during subsequent searches, seized additional narcotics from the vehicle and from Flores-Reyes’ motel room.After initial charges were filed in the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, Missoula County, the case was dismissed to allow for federal prosecution, but was later reinstated at the State’s request when the federal case was abandoned. Flores-Reyes moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that the search violated his constitutional rights and that the subsequent warrants were tainted by the prior unlawful search. The District Court denied the motion, ruling that Flores-Reyes had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the vehicle as he lacked a legitimate possessory interest, and convicted him of three counts of criminal possession with intent to distribute.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Montana found that the warrantless search of the closed pouch in the concealed compartment exceeded the scope of the owner’s consent because there was no mutual use or joint access to the pouch. The court held that the search violated both the Montana and United States Constitutions. As such, the court reversed the District Court’s order, vacated Flores-Reyes’ convictions, and remanded for suppression of all evidence obtained from the unlawful search and its fruits. View "State v. Flores-Reyes" on Justia Law

Andrew Emmings was subject to a permanent order of protection after repeated contact with a protected party. He was later charged with multiple violations of this order and pled guilty to several counts. While his case was pending, his release was revoked twice for new offenses, and he left Montana without completing required procedures. Emmings subsequently harassed other individuals, including a journalist and a lender, through threatening communications. He was sentenced to a net twelve-year term with ten years suspended, subject to various probation conditions, including restrictions on social media use.After serving his custodial sentence, Emmings was released on probation and later granted conditional discharge from supervision, with the court clarifying the discharge was subject to possible reimposition. Emmings moved to California, and after sending further threats, his conditional discharge was revoked, placing him back on probation. He did not appeal this order. Later, after failing to comply with supervision and communicate with his probation officer, the State petitioned to revoke his suspended sentence. A different district judge dismissed the petition, reasoning that Emmings’ move to California terminated his sentence and that the previous judge’s probation conditions were illegal and amounted to banishment from Montana.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case. It held that Judge Halligan’s order reimposing probation became the law of the case when it was not appealed, and Judge Larson abused his discretion in striking it. The court also held that moving out of state under conditional discharge does not terminate the sentence; the sentence remains subject to revocation, and the statutory procedures for termination were not followed. The court further found that Emmings was not banished from Montana and had not shown that probation conditions were impossible to comply with. The Supreme Court reversed the District Court’s order and reinstated the prior revocation, remanding for further proceedings. View "State v. Emmings" on Justia Law