Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The case concerns a defendant who entered a no contest plea to felony corporal injury to a spouse or cohabitant and a violation of a court order. As part of a negotiated plea agreement, the trial court offered probation, contingent on the defendant’s appearance at a future sentencing hearing. The plea agreement also included a “Cruz waiver,” which permitted the court to impose a four-year prison sentence if the defendant failed to appear for sentencing. The defendant did not attend the sentencing hearing because he was incarcerated in another county’s jail at that time.After the missed sentencing, the Superior Court of San Luis Obispo County held a hearing to determine whether the defendant had willfully violated the terms of the Cruz waiver by not appearing. The prosecution did not present any witnesses and relied solely on a CLETS report and uncertified court documents from Fresno County to support its claim that the defendant had committed a new offense and willfully failed to appear. The defense objected to the admissibility and sufficiency of this evidence. Despite these objections, the superior court found a violation, determined the failure to appear was willful, and imposed the four-year prison sentence.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Six, reviewed the case. The appellate court held that a defendant who is confined in jail in another county cannot willfully fail to appear in a different county’s court as ordered, since physical custody makes appearance impossible. Further, the court found that the prosecution did not present sufficient admissible evidence to establish willfulness, as the documents used were inadmissible and no witnesses were produced. The appellate court reversed the judgment and remanded the matter for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "People v. Jones" on Justia Law

The case involves a defendant who owned a cell phone store near Chicago and purchased stolen phones from robbery crews based in Grand Rapids, Michigan. These crews conducted armed robberies at retail cell phone stores, sometimes injuring employees and stealing both store and personal property. The defendant was not physically present at the robberies but played an active role by encouraging, directing, and facilitating the thefts, including providing instructions on what to steal and how to avoid law enforcement. He would travel to Michigan to acquire the stolen merchandise, then resell it domestically and internationally, using his technical skills to circumvent security measures on the devices.Following investigation, law enforcement linked the defendant to a series of robberies and recovered evidence from his electronic accounts. A grand jury in the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan indicted him on conspiracy and interstate transportation of stolen goods. A jury convicted him on all counts. At sentencing, the district court applied multiple enhancements based on the conduct of his coconspirators and for use of sophisticated means, resulting in a sentence of 109 months' imprisonment. The defendant appealed, arguing that the sentencing enhancements were improperly applied to his case.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed whether the district court properly attributed the coconspirators’ conduct to the defendant and whether the sophisticated-means enhancement was appropriate. The appellate court found that the district court did not err in its determination that the robberies and associated conduct were within the scope of the jointly undertaken criminal activity, and that the defendant’s actions met the requirements for the sophisticated-means enhancement. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment and sentence. View "United States v. Yousef" on Justia Law

Two physicians who operated a pain management clinic and laboratory were indicted on multiple federal charges, including conspiracy to unlawfully distribute controlled substances, health care fraud, and making false statements relating to health care matters. In exchange for the government dropping the majority of charges, both defendants pled guilty to a single count of making false statements about health care matters. The plea agreements included stipulations that they submitted nearly 3,000 claims to government health benefit programs for unnecessary drug screens, receiving over $166,000 in payments, and contained waivers of their right to appeal the conviction or sentence unless the sentence exceeded the statutory maximum.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio sentenced each defendant to five years of probation, ordered restitution of the full amount defrauded to be paid jointly and severally, and imposed a fine of $125,000 on each. At sentencing, the defendants objected to the fines as procedurally improper, unsupported by the record, and unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment's Excessive Fines Clause. The district court rejected these arguments.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed whether the appellate waivers in the plea agreements barred the defendants’ challenges. The court held that the waivers precluded their arguments regarding procedural and substantive unreasonableness of the fines. Regarding the Eighth Amendment claim, the court concluded that, even if not barred, the argument failed because the fines were not grossly disproportional to the stipulated offense conduct, which included the full fraudulent scheme and resulting harm. The court found the fines were well below the statutory maximum and appropriate given the seriousness and scope of the offense. Accordingly, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s imposition of the fines. View "United States v. Mukhdomi" on Justia Law

Two individuals, Nazaski Carrasco-Smith and Devin Delacruz, were shot while sitting in a vehicle in Providence, Rhode Island, on December 4, 2020. Carrasco-Smith survived; Delacruz did not. The investigation led police to a rented Nissan Altima and uncovered connections between the defendant, his girlfriend, and others through surveillance footage, GPS tracking, and extensive cell phone data analysis. Police also discovered a GPS tracker on Carrasco-Smith’s vehicle and recovered incriminating text messages between the defendant and his girlfriend, some of which contained accusations related to the murder.After a grand jury indictment, the case proceeded to trial in the Providence County Superior Court. The state presented forensic and digital evidence as well as expert testimony on local gang rivalries, suggesting a motive. During the trial, the prosecution introduced text messages from the defendant’s girlfriend accusing him of involvement in the murder. The defendant moved to exclude these messages, arguing they were hearsay and unfairly prejudicial. The trial justice denied the motion, admitted the messages, and issued cautionary instructions to the jury. The jury convicted the defendant on all counts, including first-degree murder and multiple firearm offenses. The defendant moved for a new trial, which was denied, and was sentenced to consecutive life terms and additional concurrent sentences.The Supreme Court of Rhode Island reviewed the case. It held that the trial justice abused her discretion by admitting the girlfriend’s accusatory text messages, finding that their probative value was substantially outweighed by their prejudicial effect under Rule 403 of the Rhode Island Rules of Evidence. The court determined that the cautionary instructions given did not cure the prejudice and that the error was not harmless in light of the prosecution’s emphasis on the messages. The court vacated the conviction and remanded for a new trial. View "State v. Chandler" on Justia Law

Federal law enforcement began investigating a Chicago address linked to the defendant after intercepting suspicious parcels sent from Arizona, one of which contained fentanyl. Agents arranged a controlled delivery of lookalike pills to the address, obtained an anticipatory search warrant, and described the property as a single-family home, when it was actually a two-unit building. The description error arose because all the agents’ pre-search checks—postal records, databases, resident information, and visual inspection—suggested the property was a single-family residence. During the delivery, agents noticed two doorbells but did not immediately conclude the building contained multiple units.After the parcel was opened inside the property, officers entered the building, swept the first-floor unit, and quickly encountered the defendant in a common stairwell with purple-stained hands, evidence he had handled the booby-trapped parcel. The defendant fled into the second-floor unit, where agents found further incriminating evidence. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied the defendant’s motion to suppress the evidence, finding the warrant valid and the execution reasonable, even if the initial investigation was not exhaustive.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the district court’s ruling. The appellate court held that the warrant, though technically overbroad, was valid because the agent neither knew nor should have known the building had multiple units based on information available at the time. The court further found the warrant was executed reasonably, as agents, upon realizing there were multiple units, limited their search to the correct premises. Finally, the court determined that, even if the warrant had been invalid, the exigent circumstances and plain view exceptions to the warrant requirement justified the search and seizure. The judgment was affirmed. View "USA v Suggs" on Justia Law

Police stopped a car driven by a man with his girlfriend as a passenger due to traffic violations. The car was registered to the girlfriend, who was cooperative and provided valid documentation. The officers learned the driver was a recently released felon with gang ties and outstanding warrants, while the girlfriend had no criminal history or warrants. After arresting and handcuffing the driver, officers removed the girlfriend from the car, patted her down, and detained her. The officers then conducted a “protective sweep” of the car, discovering a loaded handgun and ammunition under the driver’s seat.The United States District Court for the District of Colorado denied the defendant’s motion to suppress the evidence found during the sweep. The district court concluded that the officers had reasonable suspicion that the girlfriend-passenger was armed and dangerous, relying on her romantic relationship with the driver, who was associated with a gang and being arrested.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the district court’s denial of suppression de novo. The Tenth Circuit held that the protective sweep of the car was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. The court emphasized that reasonable suspicion must be based on the totality of the circumstances and cannot rely solely on a passenger’s association with a suspect. Here, the girlfriend was calm, cooperative, and not suspected of any crime. The court found that her romantic relationship with the driver did not justify a finding that she was armed and dangerous. The Tenth Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of suppression, vacated the conviction, and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Williams" on Justia Law

A noncitizen defendant, who had lived in Colorado since childhood and was granted relief under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, was arrested and charged with possessing heroin with intent to distribute after police found 16 pounds of heroin during a stop in Utah. The defendant was concerned about the potential immigration consequences of a guilty plea and repeatedly asked his retained counsel for advice. Counsel told him he could not advise on immigration matters and that the defendant should not worry about deportation until after he was in prison, suggesting he could seek immigration counsel at that time. The plea agreement stated only that the defendant “may” be removed from the United States if not a citizen. Relying on this advice, the defendant pleaded guilty.After sentencing, the defendant filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in the United States District Court for the District of Utah, arguing that his counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to properly advise him of the automatic immigration consequences of his plea, as required by Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010). The district court denied the motion, finding that the defendant was sufficiently advised of a risk of deportation and that this met constitutional requirements. The court did not reach the question of prejudice.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reversed. The court held that, under Padilla, when the immigration consequences of a conviction are clear—as they are for a federal controlled substance offense—counsel must provide clear advice that deportation will be “automatic,” “presumptively mandatory,” or “practically inevitable.” The court found the defendant’s counsel failed to do so and provided misleading advice. The Tenth Circuit remanded the case for further proceedings on whether the defendant was prejudiced by counsel’s deficient performance. View "United States v. Aguayo-Montes" on Justia Law

A healthcare provider operating as a covered entity under the federal Section 340B Drug Pricing Program purchased pharmaceuticals from several drug manufacturers. The provider alleged that these manufacturers engaged in a fraudulent scheme by knowingly charging prices for drugs that exceeded the statutory ceiling, resulting in inflated reimbursement claims submitted to Medicaid, Medicare, and other government-funded programs. The provider did not seek compensation for its own overcharges, but instead brought a qui tam action under the False Claims Act (FCA), seeking to recover losses on behalf of the federal and state governments.The United States District Court for the Central District of California dismissed the complaint with prejudice. It reasoned that, under the Supreme Court’s holding in Astra USA, Inc. v. Santa Clara County, Section 340B does not confer a private right of action for covered entities to sue drug manufacturers over pricing disputes; such claims must instead be pursued through the Section 340B Administrative Dispute Resolution process. The district court concluded that the provider’s FCA claims were essentially attempts to enforce Section 340B and should therefore be barred.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal. The appellate court held that the provider’s FCA claims were not barred by the absence of a private right of action under Section 340B or by the Astra decision, because the action was brought to remediate fraud against the government and not to recover personal losses or enforce Section 340B directly. The court further found that the provider had plausibly pleaded falsity under the FCA. The Ninth Circuit remanded the case for further proceedings. View "ADVENTIST HEALTH SYSTEM OF WEST V. ABBVIE INC." on Justia Law

Eugene Curry pleaded guilty to attempted criminal possession of a weapon in 2016 and was sentenced to five years of probation set to expire in July 2021. During his probation, allegations of noncompliance arose, and the Office of Probation requested the court to declare him delinquent in early 2018. However, the sentencing court did not file a declaration of delinquency. Instead, it continued to monitor Curry and eventually transferred him to a drug treatment court (DTC) in December 2018. As a condition of entering DTC, Curry agreed to waive his right to a hearing and plead guilty to a probation violation. He participated in the DTC program until after his probation expired. In December 2021, following further noncompliance, the DTC revoked his probation and sentenced him to incarceration.Curry appealed, arguing that his probationary term had expired, and the court no longer had jurisdiction to revoke his probation or impose incarceration. The Appellate Division affirmed the sentence, reasoning that Curry’s guilty plea to a violation of probation tolled his probationary period, thereby allowing the court to retain jurisdiction.The New York Court of Appeals reviewed the case and reversed the Appellate Division. The Court of Appeals held that under New York law, a declaration of delinquency is the exclusive mechanism by which a court may toll a probationary period. Because no such declaration was ever filed, Curry’s probation was never tolled and expired on its original date. Therefore, the court lacked jurisdiction to revoke Curry’s probation or sentence him after his probationary period had ended. The order of the Appellate Division was reversed, and the judgment of County Court was vacated. View "People v Curry" on Justia Law

A group of parole investigators, acting on an arrest warrant for a parole absconder, approached Joseph C. Jones after mistakenly concluding, based on a vague physical resemblance and location, that he might be the wanted individual. The investigators, in plainclothes and in unmarked cars, observed Jones from a distance and saw him run when a team member pulled alongside him. They chased him, saw him discard a handgun, and arrested him. Only after taking him into custody did they realize he was not the subject of the warrant. A subsequent search yielded narcotics and two handguns. Jones moved to suppress this evidence, arguing the pursuit and arrest were unconstitutional.Monroe County Supreme Court denied suppression, applying the mistaken identity rule from Hill v California and finding the investigators reasonably believed Jones was the target of their warrant, citing his general physical similarity, presence in the area, and flight. Jones pleaded guilty to attempted criminal possession of a weapon. The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, affirmed, also applying the Hill rule and finding the officers' belief reasonable under the totality of the circumstances, though two justices dissented, finding insufficient specificity in the identification.The New York Court of Appeals reviewed the case and concluded that, whether analyzed under the Hill “reasonable mistaken belief” standard or the De Bour “reasonable suspicion” framework, the record did not support the investigators’ pursuit or arrest of Jones. The Court found that Jones’s generic resemblance to the absconder and his flight did not provide the requisite reasonable suspicion, especially given the lack of evidence that Jones knew he was fleeing law enforcement. The Court held that the evidence should have been suppressed and reversed the Appellate Division’s order, granted the suppression motion, and dismissed the indictment. View "People v Jones" on Justia Law