Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

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

California Palms Addiction Recovery Campus, Inc., an Ohio rehabilitation center, and its owner, Sebastian Rucci, became the subjects of a federal criminal investigation in 2021. Pursuant to ex parte warrants issued by a magistrate judge, the FBI seized $603,902.89 from their accounts. Shortly thereafter, state agencies revoked the facility’s provider certification and terminated its Medicaid agreement. The plaintiffs filed a civil action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, seeking the return of the seized funds and disclosure of the affidavits used to obtain the warrants, alleging constitutional defects and asserting a right to inspect the affidavits under the Fourth Amendment.The Government moved to stay the civil action, indicating its intent to pursue a civil forfeiture proceeding regarding the seized funds. After initiating the forfeiture case, the Government moved to dismiss the plaintiffs’ civil action, arguing that the statutory forfeiture process provided the appropriate remedy. The district court stayed the civil action pending resolution of the forfeiture case. In September 2024, the Government voluntarily dismissed the forfeiture proceeding and returned the funds with interest to the plaintiffs. The district court then ordered the plaintiffs to show cause why the civil action should not be dismissed as moot. Despite the plaintiffs’ argument that their claim for disclosure of the warrant affidavits remained unresolved, the district court dismissed the entire action as moot, reasoning that the plaintiffs had received the relief sought.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that, while the claim for return of funds was moot, the claim for disclosure of the warrant affidavits was not. The court vacated the district court’s dismissal of the affidavit disclosure claim and remanded for further proceedings, holding that the existence of a live controversy over the disclosure request precluded dismissal for mootness. View "California Palms v. United States" on Justia Law

A native and citizen of the Dominican Republic, the petitioner was admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident in 2007. In 2022, he pleaded guilty in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida to conspiracy to commit money laundering under 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h). The judgment included a forfeiture order stating that at least $3,934,518 was obtained and laundered by the petitioner as a result of his participation in the conspiracy. In 2023, the Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings, alleging that the petitioner was removable as an aggravated felon because his offense involved more than $10,000.An Immigration Judge found the petitioner removable as charged, relying on the conviction records, including the forfeiture order. The petitioner applied for cancellation of removal, but the Immigration Judge concluded he was ineligible due to the aggravated felony conviction. On appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals, the petitioner argued that the forfeiture order did not meet the evidentiary standard required to establish that his conviction was an aggravated felony, as it did not specify the amount directly attributable to his conduct. The Board, applying the circumstance-specific approach endorsed by the Supreme Court in Nijhawan v. Holder, found that the forfeiture order was sufficient to establish that the funds involved exceeded $10,000 and dismissed the appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the Board’s decision de novo. The court held that an unrebutted forfeiture order entered solely against an alien, finding a specific amount of laundered funds attributable to the alien’s conduct of conviction, can constitute clear and convincing evidence that the amount of funds required by 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(D) is met. The court denied the petition for review. View "Reyes v. Bondi" on Justia Law

A police officer in Casper, Wyoming, observed a pickup truck driven by Mark Davis traveling slowly and approaching a stop sign. The officer noticed Davis activated his right turn signal only shortly before stopping at the intersection, estimating the signal was turned on no more than twenty feet before the turn, rather than the statutorily required 100 feet. After stopping Davis, the officer discovered an open beer can and learned Davis’s license was suspended. A subsequent search of the vehicle revealed methamphetamine, marijuana, and drug paraphernalia. Davis was charged with felony possession of methamphetamine and felony possession with intent to deliver.Davis filed a motion to suppress the evidence, arguing the officer lacked reasonable suspicion for the traffic stop because he had activated his turn signal more than 100 feet before the turn. At the suppression hearing in the District Court of Natrona County, the officer testified about his training in estimating distances, and Davis’s expert witness presented calculations based on the dash cam video, but conceded uncertainty about Davis’s speed. The district court reviewed the video and testimony, ultimately finding the officer’s estimate credible and concluding the State met its burden to show reasonable suspicion for the stop. The court denied the motion to suppress, and Davis entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving his right to appeal.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Wyoming reviewed the district court’s denial of the suppression motion, deferring to its factual findings unless clearly erroneous and reviewing constitutional questions de novo. The Supreme Court held that, under the totality of the circumstances, the officer had reasonable suspicion to believe Davis violated the turn signal statute, justifying the stop. The district court’s findings were supported by the record, and the evidence obtained was admissible. The judgment was affirmed. View "Davis v. The State of Wyoming" on Justia Law