Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The defendant was arrested for possession of controlled substances in late December 2021 and released on his own recognizance. The State filed an Information in January 2022, charging him with possession of heroin, methamphetamine, and drug paraphernalia. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, jury trials in Bingham County were suspended until late February 2022, creating a backlog of cases. The defendant’s trial was rescheduled multiple times, primarily because of delays in forensic testing and the unavailability of a forensic analyst. The district court repeatedly warned that older cases and limited judicial resources might further delay the trial. Ultimately, the defendant’s trial did not occur within the six-month statutory period, and he moved to dismiss the case, arguing violations of his statutory and constitutional speedy trial rights.The District Court of the Seventh Judicial District denied the motion to dismiss, finding good cause for the delay due to the backlog of cases resulting from the pandemic and the need to prioritize older cases. The court also noted that the defendant was not in custody, which lessened the prejudice from the delay. The defendant entered a conditional guilty plea to possession of methamphetamine, reserving his right to appeal the denial of his motion to dismiss.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Idaho reviewed whether the district court erred in denying the motion to dismiss under Idaho Code section 19-3501 and Article I, section 13 of the Idaho Constitution. The Supreme Court held that court congestion resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic constituted good cause for the trial delay under the statute. The Court also rejected the argument that the Idaho Constitution provides greater protection than the federal constitution regarding speedy trial rights, reaffirming the use of the Barker v. Wingo factors. The judgment of conviction was affirmed. View "State v. Fierro-Garcia" on Justia Law

Gary Wilson was previously convicted under Illinois law for possession of child pornography, a statute that criminalizes possession of sexually explicit images of minors as well as individuals with severe or profound intellectual disabilities. Nearly twenty years later, Wilson used gaming systems and social media to solicit sexually explicit images from minors, leading to his guilty plea on two counts of production of child pornography under federal law.At sentencing in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Western Division, the government argued that Wilson’s prior Illinois conviction triggered a federal sentencing enhancement under 18 U.S.C. § 2251(e), which increases the mandatory minimum and maximum sentences for defendants with a prior conviction “relating to” possession of child pornography. Wilson’s attorney did not object to the application of this enhancement, and the district court imposed a sixty-year sentence.On appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, Wilson argued for the first time that the Illinois statute was broader than the federal definition because it also covered images of adults with certain disabilities, and therefore should not trigger the federal enhancement. The Seventh Circuit reviewed the issue for plain error due to Wilson’s failure to object below. The court held that, under the plain error standard, it was not “clear or obvious” that the Illinois statute did not “relate to” the possession of child pornography as required by § 2251(e), especially given the broad language Congress used and existing circuit precedent. Therefore, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s application of the sentencing enhancement and Wilson’s sentence. View "USA v Wilson" on Justia Law

Federal agents traced downloads of prepubescent child pornography to an IP address at Benjamin Tyler Gentry’s residence in Boone, Iowa. During a search of the home, officers seized electronic devices and firearms. Forensic analysis of a Samsung tablet revealed 181 deleted images of child pornography, stored locally between January 2020 and just before the device was seized. Applications on the tablet were linked to Gentry’s email, and search history included terms related to child pornography. Gentry admitted to downloading pornography involving minors as young as 14.A grand jury in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa indicted Gentry on three counts related to receipt and possession of child pornography, and one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm. Gentry pleaded guilty to the firearm charge, and the child pornography charges proceeded to a jury trial. After the government’s case, Gentry moved for judgment of acquittal, arguing insufficient evidence of his knowledge regarding the images. The district court denied the motion, and the jury convicted Gentry on all child pornography counts. Post-trial, Gentry again moved for acquittal and a new trial, challenging the sufficiency of evidence for knowing receipt; both motions were denied. The court dismissed two possession convictions as lesser included offenses and sentenced Gentry to 168 months.On appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, Gentry argued for the first time that the government failed to prove venue for the receipt offense in the Southern District of Iowa. The Eighth Circuit held that Gentry affirmatively waived any objection to venue by not raising it at trial or in post-trial motions. The court declined to review the venue issue and affirmed the district court’s judgment. The main holding is that a defendant who fails to raise a venue objection at trial waives the issue, precluding appellate review. View "United States v. Gentry" on Justia Law

Over a fourteen-month period, the defendant and his wife engaged in a scheme to purchase seven high-end used vehicles from Kansas dealerships, financing the purchases with bank loans obtained through fraudulent misrepresentations on loan applications. After acquiring the vehicles, they altered title documents to remove the banks’ liens, enabling them to obtain false clear titles. These clear titles were then used to either sell the vehicles or secure title loans for cash. The defendant made few or no payments on the original car loans, and the fraudulent activity involved both Kansas and Georgia vehicle registrations.The United States District Court for the District of Kansas initially indicted both the defendant and his wife on seventeen counts, including conspiracy, bank fraud, wire fraud, and money laundering. The court severed the wife’s case after she agreed to testify against the defendant in exchange for dismissal of her charges, though she ultimately did not testify. At trial, the government dismissed one count and renumbered the remaining charges. The jury convicted the defendant on all sixteen counts, and the district court imposed concurrent forty-six-month sentences. After sentencing, the government dismissed all charges against the wife.On direct appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the sufficiency of the evidence for seven of the defendant’s convictions. The court reversed the bank fraud conviction on Count 2, finding no evidence that the defendant aided or abetted his wife’s fraudulent loan. It also reversed the wire fraud conviction on Count 9 due to insufficient proof of the interstate commerce element. However, the court affirmed the money laundering convictions on Counts 12 through 16, concluding that sufficient evidence supported the finding that the defendant’s transactions were designed, at least in part, to conceal or disguise the proceeds of bank fraud. The case was remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Cunningham" on Justia Law

The defendant was indicted in Cuyahoga County, Ohio, on two counts of rape and one count of sexual battery involving a coworker. After a night out, the alleged victim claimed that she awoke in the defendant’s home to find him having intercourse with her. At trial, the defendant moved for judgment of acquittal, arguing that the state had failed to prove the offenses occurred in Cuyahoga County, thus failing to establish venue. The trial court granted the motion based on insufficient evidence of venue and entered a judgment of acquittal.The State of Ohio appealed the trial court’s decision to the Eighth District Court of Appeals both as of right and by seeking leave to appeal. The defendant argued that, under the Supreme Court of Ohio’s prior decision in State v. Hampton, the state could not appeal a judgment of acquittal based on lack of venue. The Eighth District dismissed both appeals in brief entries, relying on Hampton.The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed the case and overruled its prior decision in State v. Hampton. The court held that venue is not an element of a criminal offense, and a judgment terminating a prosecution based on insufficient evidence of venue is not a judgment of acquittal but rather a dismissal of the indictment, complaint, or information. Therefore, under R.C. 2945.67(A), the state has a right to appeal such a dismissal as of right. The Supreme Court of Ohio reversed the Eighth District’s judgment dismissing the state’s appeal as of right and remanded the case for further consideration. The court affirmed the dismissal of the state’s discretionary appeal as unnecessary. View "State v. Musarra" on Justia Law

The defendant pled guilty to possessing fentanyl with intent to distribute, after selling fentanyl-laced Percocet pills that resulted in the death of an Army soldier, L.G. The Presentence Investigation Report initially calculated a sentencing range of 210–240 months under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, based on the finding that death resulted from the drug offense. At sentencing, the government presented evidence linking the defendant’s sale to L.G.’s fatal overdose, including communications and undercover purchases. The district court overruled the defendant’s objection to the application of the enhanced guideline and imposed a 240-month sentence.On appeal, the government conceded that applying the enhanced guideline was plain error under United States v. Greenough, because the death was not part of the crime to which the defendant pled guilty. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit remanded for resentencing. At resentencing, the government acknowledged the lower guideline range of 10–16 months. The district court considered arguments for and against an upward variance, ultimately imposing the same 240-month sentence, citing the seriousness of the offense and other statutory factors, but did not inform the defendant of his right to allocute. The defendant’s counsel did not object after sentencing.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the procedural and substantive challenges to the sentence. The court found that the district court’s explanation for the upward variance was insufficient, constituting clear error, but held that this did not affect the defendant’s substantial rights. The court also held that considering L.G.’s death as a sentencing factor was permissible under precedent. Finally, the court found that the failure to allow allocution at resentencing did not warrant reversal. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the 240-month sentence. View "United States v. Horton" on Justia Law

A man was charged with illegal possession of ammunition after police stopped a car in which he was a passenger late at night, citing a non-functioning license plate light and tinted windows. During the stop, officers asked both occupants if they were on parole or probation, ordered them out of the vehicle, and conducted pat searches, citing low lighting and baggy clothing as reasons. A search of a backpack near the passenger seat revealed ammunition and documents with the passenger’s name. The passenger, who had prior felony convictions, was arrested. During the encounter, officers used slang and whistled at both the passenger and two Latino men passing by.The Santa Clara County Superior Court initially denied the passenger’s motion under the California Racial Justice Act (RJA), finding he had not made a prima facie showing that the officers’ actions were motivated by racial bias. After the California Court of Appeal issued an alternative writ requiring reconsideration and a detailed ruling on all claims, the trial court again denied the motion, concluding that the allegations were conclusory or unsupported.The California Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District, reviewed the case de novo and held that the passenger had made a prima facie showing under the RJA. The court found that, when considering the totality of the facts—including expert testimony, statistical evidence, and the officers’ language and conduct—there was a substantial likelihood that law enforcement exhibited bias based on race, ethnicity, or national origin. The court clarified that at the prima facie stage, the trial court should not weigh evidence or make credibility determinations, but should accept the truth of the movant’s factual allegations unless they are conclusory or contradicted by the record. The appellate court issued a writ directing the trial court to hold an evidentiary hearing on the RJA motion. View "Hernandez v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

In 2008, a jury convicted the petitioner of multiple serious offenses, including two counts of attempted first degree murder, three counts of attempted murder of police officers, infliction of corporal injury on a cohabitant, and attempted arson. The trial court imposed a lengthy custodial sentence, including consecutive and concurrent life terms, as well as additional years for other offenses. The court also imposed an $8,000 restitution fine under Penal Code section 1202.4, ordered $1,700 in direct victim restitution, and assessed a court security fee.Following the conviction, the petitioner’s judgment was affirmed on direct appeal. Years later, the California Legislature amended the law to provide that restitution fines imposed under section 1202.4 become unenforceable and uncollectible after 10 years, and the portion of the judgment imposing such fines is vacated. The petitioner sought relief by filing a habeas corpus petition, arguing that the statutory vacatur of the restitution fine required a full resentencing and that habeas was the proper vehicle to effectuate this change.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two, held that the statutory vacatur of the restitution fine under section 1465.9(d) does not trigger the full resentencing rule. The court reasoned that the statute only vacates the portion of the judgment imposing the fine, not the entire sentence, and does not affect the custodial components. The court further held that a postjudgment motion in the trial court, rather than a habeas petition, is the appropriate method to correct the abstract of judgment to reflect the vacatur of the restitution fine. The petition for writ of habeas corpus was therefore denied. View "In re Mattison" on Justia Law

In 2013, the plaintiff was charged in a single criminal case with two counts: domestic abuse assault and child endangerment. Pursuant to a plea agreement, the domestic abuse assault charge was amended to disorderly conduct, a simple misdemeanor, to which the plaintiff pleaded guilty. The child endangerment charge was dismissed as part of the agreement. Ten years later, the plaintiff sought expungement of the misdemeanor conviction under Iowa Code section 901C.3, which allows expungement of certain misdemeanor convictions if specific requirements are met.The Iowa District Court for Polk County granted expungement only for the disorderly conduct conviction, restricting access and redacting documents related to that count but leaving the remainder of the case file, including information about the dismissed charge, accessible to the public. The district court did not specify which documents should be restricted or redacted. When the plaintiff realized that the criminal case file was still publicly accessible, he filed a motion for implementation of expungement, arguing that the statute required expungement of the entire criminal case file, not just the conviction-related documents. The district court denied the motion, interpreting the statute to allow expungement only of documents related to the misdemeanor conviction.The Iowa Supreme Court reviewed the case on a writ of certiorari. The court held that Iowa Code section 901C.3 requires expungement of the entire criminal case file when the prerequisites for expungement are met, not just the portions related to the misdemeanor conviction. The court reasoned that the statute’s language and legislative history support a whole-file approach, and that partial expungement could still allow the public to infer the existence of expunged charges, undermining the statute’s purpose. The Supreme Court sustained the writ, vacated the district court’s order, and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "J. Doe v. Iowa District Court for Polk County" on Justia Law

A violent incident stemming from a planned drug transaction led to the deaths of two individuals in Las Vegas. The victims, along with a third person, met with two men, including the appellant, at a gas station under the pretense of a drug deal, but intended to steal the drugs. After a confrontation, the victims attempted to flee in their vehicle, pursued by the appellant and his codefendant, who fired shots during the chase. Two of the victims died from their injuries. The surviving victim provided a detailed description of the assailants and later identified the appellant in a photo array after initially withholding the identification.The Eighth Judicial District Court in Clark County presided over the trial. The appellant filed several pretrial motions, including to suppress the identification evidence, his statements to police, and certain text messages, and to sever his trial from his codefendant’s. These motions were denied after hearings, some of which were delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic. At trial, the jury convicted the appellant on all counts, including two counts of first-degree murder with a deadly weapon, conspiracy to commit murder, attempted murder, and related firearm offenses. The appellant was sentenced to an aggregate term of 36 years to life.The Supreme Court of the State of Nevada reviewed the case. It held that a mixed standard of review applies to the suppression of pretrial identification evidence, reviewing factual findings for clear error and legal conclusions de novo. The court found the photo array was not unnecessarily suggestive and the identification reliable. The court also upheld the denial of the motion to suppress the appellant’s statements, finding no coercion or Miranda violation. Other claims, including delayed rulings, authentication of text messages, denial of severance, and the giving of a flight instruction, were rejected or found to be harmless error. The judgment of conviction was affirmed. View "Camacho v. State" on Justia Law