United States v. Flores-Gonzalez

Court: US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit

Docket: 19-2204

Opinion Date: November 8, 2023

Judge: William Joseph Kayatta, Jr.

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The First Circuit affirmed the decision of the district court sentencing Defendant following his guilty plea to a charge of illegally possessing a machine gun, holding that Defendant's upwardly variant sentence stood.

On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court erred by classifying him as a "prohibited person" under U.S.S.G. 2K2.1(a)(4)(B) and that his forty-eight-month sentence was both procedurally and substantively unreasonable. The First Circuit affirmed on the issue of whether Defendant's classification as a prohibited person was clear error, holding that it was not. The Court, however, divided evenly on how to rule on Defendant's argument that the district court improperly varied upward eighteen months from the upper end of the guidelines sentencing range. The First Circuit thus affirmed Defendant's sentence, holding that the sentence was reasonable.

Varela-Chavarria v. Garland

Court: US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit

Docket: 22-1780

Opinion Date: November 9, 2023

Judge: Rikelman

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

The First Circuit denied Petitioner's petition for review challenging the denial of her application for asylum and withholding of removal, holding that Petitioner failed to establish a connection between her past persecution on account of a statutorily protected ground.

Specifically, the First Circuit held (1) Petitioner failed to raise before the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) her argument that the BIA's failure to address a procedural error in Petitioner's hearing before the IJ violated her right to due process under the Fifth Amendment, and therefore, this Court was precluded from addressing it now; and (2) the BIA erred by failing to evaluate the severity of Petitioner's mistreatment as a teenager through the eyes of a child, but the error did not warrant remand because Petitioner failed to link her mistreatment to a statutorily-protected ground.

Fields v. Jordan

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Docket: 17-5065

Opinion Date: November 3, 2023

Judge: Murphy

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

In 1993, Fields, having spent the day drinking alcohol and smoking marijuana, fought with Burton, who lived in a duplex owned by Horton. That night, Burton was locked outside. Fields appeared, with a knife, and broke a window in the duplex. Fields and Burton fled before police arrived, having been called by a neighbor. Officers found Fields in Horton’s residence, a block away, in possession of Horton’s jewelry, saying that he had killed Horton, who was dead in her bedroom. At his second trial, the prosecution argued that Fields broke into Horton’s residence through a storm window, murdered her, and started burglarizing the residence before police arrived. To test that theory, the jury conducted an experiment using a flat-tipped knife submitted into evidence to remove a cabinet door in the jury room (in place of the storm window). Satisfied with the outcome, the jurors convicted Fields of intentional murder and sentenced him to death.

In 2022, the Sixth Circuit granted Fields conditional habeas corpus relief. On rehearing, en banc, the court affirmed the denial of relief. The Supreme Court has not addressed when jury experiments of this type violate state or federal law. Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act habeas relief is unavailable unless a state court has unreasonably applied “clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court,” 28 U.S.C. 2254(d)(1).

United States v. Davis

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Dockets: 22-1717, 22-1698

Opinion Date: November 9, 2023

Judge: Per Curiam

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Davis and Allen pleaded guilty to using a facility of interstate commerce (their cellphones) in a murder-for-hire scheme, 18 U.S.C. 1958(a).

The Sixth Circuit affirmed, rejecting an argument that the government could not constitutionally apply the federal murder-for-hire statute to their conduct. Although the statute rests on Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce, the defendants never left Michigan or even made calls outside the state when committing the murder. At most, some of their intrastate calls required the telephone company to use out-of-state switches. The Supreme Court has held that Congress may regulate the “instrumentalities of interstate commerce” even when used only within a state, and the Sixth Circuit treats an ordinary telephone as one such “instrumentality” within Congress’s control. The court also rejected speedy-trial claims. Before they pleaded guilty, the district court had postponed their trial for nearly four years. But the delay arose in part from their own repeated requests for more time and in part from the COVID-19 pandemic. Both reasons justified the delay.

United States v. Reynolds

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Docket: 22-1431

Opinion Date: November 9, 2023

Judge: Murphy

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

Reynolds was convicted of selling a fentanyl-heroin mixture that killed two young men, 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1). Investigators connected Reynolds to these fatal drugs in part through cellphone records, including records showing the general locations of several phones; text messages, including messages between a detective pretending to be one of the victims and Reynolds; and a controlled buy arranged by that detective.

The Sixth Circuit affirmed the conviction and 328-month sentence, rejecting arguments that the government introduced insufficient evidence to convict; that a government expert identified the phones’ general locations using a software program that failed the “Daubert” reliability standards; that the district court violated the Constitution by excluding text messages that allegedly supported his innocence; and that the prosecutor improperly “vouched” for a key government witness during closing arguments.

United States v. Rogers

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Docket: 22-5837

Opinion Date: November 6, 2023

Judge: Chad A. Readler

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

In 2017, officers discovered Rogers sitting in a motel room with methamphetamine. Rogers was taken into custody but released. Rogers was indicted in February 2018 for trafficking in two grams or more of methamphetamine. A month later, Rogers was riding in a vehicle that was stopped for a minor traffic violation. Officers realized that Rogers had an active warrant for his arrest for failing to appear following the indictment. A search of the car unearthed a bag of methamphetamine under Rogers’s seat. Rogers pleaded guilty to two state felony drug trafficking offenses (2017 motel incident; 2018 traffic stop) and received concurrent prison terms. He was released in 2020.

In 2021, officers again found Rogers in possession of methamphetamine. Rogers pleaded guilty to possessing with the intent to distribute methamphetamine, 21 U.S.C. 841(a). The probation office recommended that Rogers’s 2017 and 2018 offenses triggered the career offender enhancement for certain defendants with “at least two prior felony convictions” of a controlled substance offense, U.S.S.G. 4B1.1(a), resulting in a Guidelines range of 262-327 months. Rogers unsuccessfully argued that the two offenses did not count as distinct prior felony convictions because they were not “separated by an intervening arrest,” as required by the Guidelines. The Sixth Circuit affirmed his 240-month sentence. Rogers was arrested (as the term is used in the Guidelines) after the motel incident but before the traffic stop.

United States v. Sweatt

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

Docket: 23-1752

Opinion Date: November 8, 2023

Judge: Per Curiam

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

In 2010, Sweatt pleaded guilty to five counts of armed bank robbery. The district court ordered him to pay $20,038.52 under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act, 18 U.S.C. 3663A–3664. In the “Payment Schedule,” the court selected “immediately.” Sweatt declined to participate in the Bureau’s Inmate Financial Responsibility Program, through which the Bureau allocates portions of prisoners’ incomes to their restitution debts. In 2023, the district court authorized the Bureau of Prisons to turn over $600 of $1,100 in Sweatt’s prison trust account to be applied toward his restitution debt. Sweatt then had hip replacement surgery, preventing him from working for about 18 months.

Sweatt moved to modify his judgment to halt his restitution payments until he resumes working; 18 U.S.C. 3664(k) provides that once a court receives notification of “any material change in the defendant’s economic circumstances that might affect the defendant’s ability to pay restitution,” the court may “adjust the payment schedule.” The Seventh Circuit vacated the denial of his motion. Sweatt did not ask to alter the fact or amount of restitution or to usurp the Bureau’s exclusive authority to impose a pre-release payment plan. The government assumed that Sweatt was trying to alter his obligations under a Program agreement with the Bureau but no such agreement existed. Generally, district courts lack jurisdiction to modify a sentence, but they can do so when authorized by statute; section 3664(k) permits the court to modify the restitution schedule.

United States v. Cody Rethford

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Docket: 22-3634

Opinion Date: November 3, 2023

Judge: LOKEN

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. The presentence investigation report recommended a base offense level of 20 under USSG Section 2K2.1(a)(4)(A) because Defendant’s 2013 Missouri conviction for second-degree robbery is a “crime of violence” under the Sentencing Guidelines. Overruling Defendant’s objection, the district court adopted this recommendation, resulting in an advisory guidelines sentencing range of 63 to 78 months imprisonment. The court imposed a 72-month sentence followed by three years of supervised release. Defendant appealed the sentence, arguing the district court erred in determining that his prior conviction for Missouri second-degree robbery is a crime of violence under the Guidelines.
 
The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that the Guidelines define “crime of violence” to mean “any offense under federal or state law, punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year,” that either “(1) has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another” (the force clause), or “(2) is murder . . . robbery [etc.]” (the enumerated offenses clause). The court concluded that controlling Eighth Circuit precedent has established that a prior conviction for Missouri second-degree robbery under Mo. Rev. Stat. Section 569.030.1, the statute in effect when Defendant committed the offense, is a crime of violence under USSG Section 4B1.2(a)(1).

United States v. Lamont Bailey

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Docket: 22-3394

Opinion Date: November 3, 2023

Judge: LOKEN

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to Possession of a Firearm by a Felon in violation. The district court sentenced him to 100 months imprisonment. Bailey appealed the sentence, arguing the court erred by increasing his base offense level under USSG Section 2K2.1(a)(2), based on two prior Illinois convictions for Delivery or Manufacture of Cocaine in violation of 720 ILCS 570/206(b)(4); and by applying a four-level increase under Section 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) because he used a firearm in connection with another felony offense, Intimidation with a Dangerous Weapon in violation of Iowa Code Section 708.6(2).
 
The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that Defendant contends he is entitled to this stand-your-ground exception, despite being a felon in possession, because his illegal activity was not germane to his use of force against the person who was shooting at him. The court explained that the Supreme Court disagreed. Thus, his “possession of the handgun was germane to the use of deadly force.” Further, the court wrote that here, the district court found that Defendant did not have “reason to believe that somebody was actually shooting at him or endangering his life.” Thus, even if Defendant had no duty to retreat, his use of force was not necessary to avoid injury or harm to himself (or to anyone else).

USA V. DANIEL VINGE

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Docket: 22-10300

Opinion Date: November 8, 2023

Judge: VANDYKE

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

Defendant participated in a drug distribution operation in Hawaii and charged with possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine and heroin. On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court should not have applied the leader-or-organizer enhancement under Section 3B1.1(c) of the Sentencing Guidelines because no evidence suggests that he “exercised control over others” in the organization.

The Ninth Circuit affirmed, finding that the level of control required to be an organizer is only “the ability and influence necessary to coordinate the activities of others to achieve the desired result.” United States v. Doe, 778 F.3d 814, 824 (9th Cir. 2015).

United States v. Brown

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

Docket: 22-6175

Opinion Date: November 7, 2023

Judge: Paul Joseph Kelly, Jr.

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Defendant-Appellant Dalton “Dash” Brown pled guilty to a single count of being a felon in possession of ammunition, and was sentenced to 120 months’ imprisonment and three years’ supervised release. On appeal, he challenged the sentence, arguing the district court improperly calculated his offense level under the Sentencing Guidelines. According to Brown, the district court erred in applying: (1) a multiple-firearms enhancement; (2) a stolen-firearm enhancement; (3) a higher base offense for possession of a high-capacity magazine; (4) a reckless-endangerment upward-adjustment; and (5) an “in-connection-with” enhancement. He urges the court to reverse and remand for resentencing with a lower offense level. Findnign no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the sentence.

Burnett v. State

Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Citation: 2023 Ark. 162

Opinion Date: November 9, 2023

Judge: Womack

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court dismissed this petition brought by Petitioner for writ of certiorari and writ of habeas corpus alleging that the circuit court violated Ark. R. Crim. P. 8 and 9, holding that the petition was moot.

The State charged Petitioner with criminal use of a prohibited weapon and criminal acts involving explosives or a destructive device. Thereafter a grand jury indictment was filed in federal district court alleging that Petitioner knowingly made a destructive device and knowingly possessed a destructive device. Petitioner pled guilty to one count of aiding and abetting the possession of a destructive device. Thereafter, Petitioner filed this petition for writ of certiorari and habeas corpus. The State's charges against Petitioner were subsequently nol-prossed. In his petition, Petitioner alleged that he appeared without counsel at his pretrial bail hearing, in violation of rule 9.2, and that the circuit court failed to make specific findings when setting his bail. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that Petitioner's claims were moot.

Bakersfield Californian v. Super. Ct.

Court: California Courts of Appeal

Docket: F086308(Fifth Appellate District)

Opinion Date: November 7, 2023

Judge: Detjen

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

A defendant in a criminal proceeding (“Defendant”) was arrested based on a co-defendant’s statement. The petitioning Newspaper sought an interview with the then-unindicted co-defendant (“Co-defendant”). Subsequently, Defendant filed a subpoena seeking all material relevant to Newspaper’s interview with co-defendant.

The trial court denied Newspaper’s request to quash the subpoena, finding that newsperson’s immunity must yield to a criminal defendant’s right to a fair trial. The court ultimately held Newspaper in contempt.

The Fifth Appellate District affirmed the trial court’s denial of a Newspaper’s motion to quash a subpoena but vacated the trial court’s finding of contempt.

Boitez v. Super. Ct.

Court: California Courts of Appeal

Docket: C098102(Third Appellate District)

Opinion Date: November 7, 2023

Judge: Robie

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Petitioner Juan Boitez moved to suppress evidence obtained during a search of his mother’s car. After the trial court denied his motion, Boitez petitioned for writ of mandate or prohibition The issue this case presented for the Court of Appeals' review was whether Boitez gave voluntary consent for the police to search his mother’s car after he was pulled over for a traffic violation. As a material part of obtaining Boitez's consent, the police officer falsely, but apparently with subjective belief that it was true, stated that he had the authority to tow the car, but would not do so if Boitez consented to the search. Specifically, the Court considered whether, but for the police officer’s false promise of leniency as to the towing of the mother’s car, the prosecution met its burden by a preponderance of the evidence that Boitez's consent was uncoerced. To this, the Court concluded the prosecution did not meet its burden: the false promise of leniency not to tow the car was a material and inextricable part of the agreement inducing defendant’s consent to the search, and thus, under the totality of the circumstances, petitioner's consent was not voluntarily given. As part of its analysis, the Court adopted the reasoning of the First Circuit Court of Appeals that the question of voluntary consent "cannot be based on the subjective good faith of a police officer in making the false statement that induced the defendant’s consent to search." The Court issued a peremptory writ of mandate directing the trial court to vacate its order denying the motion to suppress and to enter a new order granting the motion.

People v. Renteria

Court: California Courts of Appeal

Docket: H049980(Sixth Appellate District)

Opinion Date: November 8, 2023

Judge: Bromberg

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

In 2018, Renteria was sentenced to 34 years in prison on 18 drug- and gang-related offenses. Changes in sentencing laws took effect while an appeal was pending. Senate Bill 136 amended Penal Code section 667.51 to limit prior prison term enhancements to terms for sexually violent offenses; Senate Bill 1393 amended section 1385 to give trial courts discretion to strike enhancements in the furtherance of justice. The trial court declined to conduct a full resentencing.

The Attorney General conceded that under newly enacted Senate Bill 483, the trial court should have conducted a full resentencing. The court of appeal remanded. The trial court did not consider the applicability of the newly amended section 1170, addressing the choice between sentencing a defendant to lower, middle, or upper terms, and whether any of the seven consecutive sentences totaling 26 years imposed on Renteria should be reduced. Renteria is entitled to application of Assembly Bill 518, amending section 654, which prohibits multiple punishments for the same acts or omissions. The trial court must either vacate the sentence for gang participation, which was one year and four months, or the sentences for accessory after the fact and offering to sell cocaine, which total four years. The trial court was not required to strike the prior serious felony enhancement.

Martin v. Delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Docket: 386, 2022

Opinion Date: November 7, 2023

Judge: Karen L. Valihura

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Defendant-appellant Larry Martin appealed the sentence he received after pleading guilty to one count of Stalking and two counts of Non-Compliance with Bond (“NCB”). The trial court entered its first sentencing order on August 12, 2022, followed by three corrected sentencing orders, entered on September 8, September 21, and October 17, 2022, respectively. It was undisputed that the trial court’s first sentencing order was illegal because it imposed a sentence that exceeded the maximum lawful sentence for Stalking, which was three years at Level V supervision. In an email dated August 29, 2022, Martin’s trial counsel informed the trial court of the illegality of the sentence, and that the State recommended that the trial court fix its error by redistributing Martin’s five-year prison sentence across the Stalking conviction and the two NCB convictions. In a corrected sentencing order, issued on September 8, 2022, the trial court reduced Martin’s sentence for Stalking to three years of incarceration at Level V supervision, to bring it in line with the lawful maximum sentence. The trial court then added one year of incarceration at Level V supervision, suspended for probation, to the suspended fines for each NCB conviction. It was undisputed that if this had been the original sentence, Martin’s sentence would have been lawful. Martin appealed the trial court’s sentencing order insofar as it modified his sentence for the NCB convictions, arguing that by increasing his sentence for the NCB convictions, the trial court effectively resentenced him for those convictions despite the fact that he had already served them. This was because those sentences consisted solely of fines that were suspended when imposed and as such, were completed as of the date of the sentence. According to Martin, he completed his sentence for both NCB convictions on August 12, 2022, and any subsequent resentencing was barred by principles of double jeopardy. The Delaware Supreme Court was not persuaded by this argument and affirmed the sentence imposed by the trial court in its September 8, 2022 sentencing order, as modified by the September 21, 2022 and October 17, 2022 sentencing orders.

Reynolds v. State

Court: Florida Supreme Court

Docket: SC2022-1221

Opinion Date: November 9, 2023

Judge: Per Curiam

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court summarily denying Appellant's successive motion for DNA testing filed under Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.853, holding that that the trial court did not err in summarily denying Appellant's successive motion for DNA testing.

Appellant was found guilty to two counts of first-degree murder and one count of second-degree murder and sentenced to death for each first-degree murder conviction. This case arose after Appellant filed a second motion requesting DNA testing. The trial court summarily denied the successive motion as procedurally barred and insufficiently pled. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Appellant's request for DNA testing was procedurally barred; and (2) even if Appellant's claim were not procedurally barred his motion still would not support relief.

Carter v. Georgia

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia

Docket: S23A0871

Opinion Date: November 7, 2023

Judge: Ellington

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Pacer Sebastian Carter appealed his convictions for malice murder and other crimes in connection with the 2017 shooting death of Aramis O’Brad Peterson. Carter argued the trial court erred in omitting a jury instruction on the statutory requirement of corroboration of accomplice testimony in felony cases, and that his trial attorney rendered ineffective assistance by failing to object to it. In addition, Carter argued his attorney was ineffective in admitting a document entitled “Proof of Incarceration.” Because both claims of trial court error were subject to review only for plain error, and Carter failed to carry his burden of showing either plain error or the ineffective assistance of his trial counsel, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed the judgments of conviction.

Cooper v. Georgia

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia

Docket: S23A0846

Opinion Date: November 7, 2023

Judge: McMillan

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Kiresa Cooper was convicted by jury of malice murder, feticide, and other related crimes in connection with the shooting death of Auriel Callaway, who was pregnant at the time she died. On appeal, Cooper argued: (1) the evidence was insufficient to support her malice murder conviction; and (2) that her trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to object to twenty portions of the lead detective’s testimony on various grounds, such as inadmissible hearsay, confrontation violations, improper opinion and speculation, and failure to properly authenticate evidence. Finding no reversible error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed.

Neason v. Georgia

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia

Docket: S23A0956

Opinion Date: November 7, 2023

Judge: LaGrua

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Appellant Armetrius Neason was convicted of malice murder and a related charge in connection with the shooting death of Teresa Carter. On appeal, Neason contended the evidence was insufficient as a matter of federal constitutional due process. Finding no reversible error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed.

Thomas v. Georgia

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia

Docket: S23A1137

Opinion Date: November 7, 2023

Judge: Colvin

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Appellant Larry Thomas appealed his convictions for felony murder in connection with the vehicular deaths of Krystof Krawczynski and Elizbieta Gurtler-Krawczynski. On appeal, Appellant contends that the trial court erred in sentencing him for two counts of felony murder (Counts 1 and 2) rather than for two counts of homicide by vehicle (Counts 7 and 8) because both sets of charges were predicated on fleeing or attempting to elude a police officer, and thus the rule of lenity required that he receive the lesser penalty. This argument, however, was foreclosed by the Georgia Supreme Court's decision in Sosebee v. Georgia, __ Ga. __, __ (1) (__ SE2d __) (2023) As explained in Sosebee, the felony-murder and homicide-by-vehicle statutes “are not ambiguous and do not require different punishments for the same conduct” because “[t]he offense of felony murder . . . criminalizes causing the death of a human being 'in the commission of a felony,’ but the offense of homicide by vehicle in the first degree under OCGA § 40-6-393 (a) does not.” Accordingly, as in Sosebee, “[t]he rule of lenity simply has no application in this case, and this claim of error fails.”

Idaho v. Harrell

Court: Idaho Supreme Court - Criminal

Docket: 48839

Opinion Date: November 9, 2023

Judge: Zahn

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Rodney Harrell appealed his conviction for trafficking in methamphetamine, trafficking in marijuana, and possession of drug paraphernalia. Harrell argued his convictions should have been vacated because: (1) the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress; and (2) the district court erred in denying his objection to the reduction of peremptory challenges imposed by the Idaho Supreme Court’s emergency order adopted in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed Harrell’s judgment of conviction.

State v. Griffin

Court: Iowa Supreme Court

Docket: 22-1234

Opinion Date: November 9, 2023

Judge: May

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court granting Defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained during a traffic stop, holding that because Defendant's license plate cover violated Iowa Code 321.37 it was reasonable for Iowa State Patrol troopers to stop his SUV, the stop was not unconstitutional, the exclusionary rule did not apply, and there were no grounds to suppress evidence from the stop.

Because Defendant's rear license plate was shrouded with a tinted plastic cover troopers found it difficult to read the plate. The troopers stopped Defendant to warn him that the cover violated Iowa law and during the stop uncovered evidence leading to Defendant's charges for operating while intoxicated and child endangerment. The district court granted Defendant's motion to suppress, concluding that the traffic stop was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the traffic stop was constitutional because the license plate cover violated an Iowa traffic statute; and (2) therefore, the district court erred in suppressing evidence from the stop.

State v. Rutherford

Court: Iowa Supreme Court

Docket: 22-0553

Opinion Date: November 3, 2023

Judge: Oxley

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's judgment of sentence and confirmed what it held in State v. Wilbourn, 974 N.W.2d 58 (Iowa 2022) and State v. Treptow, 960 N.W.2d 98 (Iowa 2021), that if good cause is lacking to bring a criminal appeal, an appellate court has no jurisdiction, and the appeal must be dismissed.

Defendant pleaded guilty to second-degree theft and was sentenced to three consecutive five-year sentences of imprisonment. The court of appeals affirmed the sentence after finding good cause to address Defendant's challenge to his sentence under Iowa Code 814.6(1)(a)(3). The court declined to address Defendant's assertion that there was an inadequate factual basis to support his guilty plea to theft based on a lack of good cause. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and vacated the judgment in part, holding (1) because the court of appeals had jurisdiction over this appeal it should have also addressed Defendant's challenge to the factual basis supporting his guilty plea; and (2) even though this Court had jurisdiction over Defendant's appeal, it lacked the authority to resolve his factual basis challenge.

State v. Lipscombe

Court: Maine Supreme Judicial Court

Citation: 2023 ME 70

Opinion Date: November 9, 2023

Judge: Horton

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of conviction of hindering apprehension or prosecution entered by the trial court following a jury trial, holding that Appellant was not entitled to relief on his allegations of error.

Specifically, the Supreme Judicial Court held (1) the trial court did not commit obvious error in allowing a closing argument implying that Appellant had a burden of proving that the State's witnesses had a motive to lie and instructing the jury that it could "consider whether there has been any evidence introduced of any motive or lack of motive for a witness to exaggerate or lie"; and (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Appellant's motion for voir dire of jurors filed after learning that one witness said “good luck” to the jurors while leaving the courtroom.

State v. Nightingale

Court: Maine Supreme Judicial Court

Citation: 2023 ME 71

Opinion Date: November 9, 2023

Judge: Horton

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed in all respects a judgment of conviction of two counts of murder and other weapons-related counts entered by the trial court following a jury trial on the murder charges and a bench trial on the other charges, holding that there was no error or abuse of discretion.

Specifically, the Supreme Judicial Court held that the trial court (1) did not err by denying Defendant's request to present evidence to the jury that a State investigator had monitored telephone calls between Defendant and his attorney while Defendant was in pretrial detention; (2) did not err by giving a jury instruction on accomplice liability; (3) did not err by not granting a mistrial based on certain comments made by the prosecutor during the State's closing arguments; and (4) did not err in sentencing Defendant to life sentences on the murder charges.

Ardaneh v. Commonwealth

Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Docket: SJC-13481

Opinion Date: November 7, 2023

Judge: Per Curiam

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the single justice denying Petitioner's petition for relief citing Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3, Mass. Gen. Laws ch, 249, 5, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 278, 28E, 28 U.S.C. 1292(b), and Mass. R. Crim. P. 15, holding that the single justice did not err or abuse his discretion in denying relief.

Petitioner, who was awaiting trial on indictments for rape, strangulation or suffocation and other offenses, filed papers seeking review of the denial of certain pretrial motions and correction of other purported errors. The single justice denied all requests for relief. The Supreme Judicial Court denied Petitioner's appeal, holding that Petitioner failed to demonstrate that review of his claims could not adequately be obtained in the trial court or on appeal from his conviction.

Hecker v. State

Court: Supreme Court of Missouri

Docket: SC100084

Opinion Date: November 7, 2023

Judge: Hecker

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court overruling Appellant's Mo. R. Crim. P. 24.035 motion for postconviction relief, holding that the circuit court did not clearly err in concluding that counsel was not ineffective for failing to investigate Appellant's competency at his guilty plea and sentencing proceedings.

In his Rule 24.035 motion, Appellant, who pleaded guilty to second-degree assault of a special victim and resisting arrest, brought this motion alleging that his attorney was ineffective at both his guilty plea and sentencing proceedings by failing adequately to address his competency to proceed. The circuit court denied relief. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not clearly err in concluding that Appellant's attorney was not ineffective for failing to investigate his competency at Appellant's guilty plea and sentencing proceedings.

State v. H.R.

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Citation: 2023 MT 210

Opinion Date: November 7, 2023

Judge: Gustafson

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment and order transferring jurisdiction of this matter involving H.R. from youth court to district court, imposing a Department of Corrections (DOC) commitment, auditing two years of supervision to the disposition, and requiring H.R. to register as a sex offender, holding that there was no error.

The youth court revoked H.R.'s probation and committed him to the DOC for placement. Upon turning eighteen, H.R. was released, and the State sought to transfer jurisdiction from youth court to district court and to order the supervisory responsibility to transfer from juvenile probation services to adult probation services. The youth court transferred jurisdiction to the district court and supervisory responsibility to adult probation. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the youth court exceeded the bounds of its authority under Mont. Code Ann. 41-5-208 because it imposed a new disposition on H.R. in addition to the transfer of jurisdiction and supervision agency because such a new disposition was not available under section 41-5-208.

In re Interest of D.H.

Court: Nebraska Supreme Court

Citation: 315 Neb. 458

Opinion Date: November 9, 2023

Judge: Papik

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court ordering reinstatement of D.H.'s firearm rights, holding that there was no error on the part of the district court.

After D.H. attempted suicide in 1995 a mental health board obtained a mental health commitment. As a result of D.H.'s commitment, federal and state statutes restricted his rights to purchase and possess firearms. In 2011, the Legislature enacted Neb. Rev. State. 71-963, which created a procedure whereby those subject to firearm restrictions resulting from a mental health-related commitment or adjudication could petition to have those restrictions removed. D.H. filed a motion to remove his firearm restrictions under section 71-963. The Mental Health Board of the 10th Judicial District of Nebraska denied the petition. The district court initially affirmed the denial but, upon reconsideration, granted the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not commit an error of law or abuse its discretion in sustaining D.H.'s motion to reconsider, alter, or amend.

State v. Harms

Court: Nebraska Supreme Court

Citation: 315 Neb. 445

Opinion Date: November 9, 2023

Judge: Lindsey Miller-Lerman

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the order of the district court denying Appellant's motion for postconviction relief without holding an evidentiary hearing, holding that there was no error.

Appellant pled no contest to three counts of possession of child pornography and sentenced to consecutive terms of imprisonment of fifteen to twenty years on each count. Appellant later filed his motion for postconviction relief, asserting various claims for relief. The district court denied summarily denied the motion. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court of appeals (1) did not err when it determined that Appellant's due process claim related to competency was procedurally barred; (2) did not abuse its discretion in affirming the district court's denial of Appellant's claims of ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel; and (3) did not err when it concluded that Appellant's due process claim related to competency was procedurally barred.

State v. Simons

Court: Nebraska Supreme Court

Citation: 315 Neb. 415

Opinion Date: November 3, 2023

Judge: Freudenberg

Areas of Law: Criminal Law, Government & Administrative Law

The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's conviction of possession of a controlled substance and vacated his sentence, holding that the Nebraska Probation Administration Act (the Act) does not permit the increase of the term of probation to which the offender was sentenced before a hearing where the violation of probation is established by clear and convincing evidence.

The State charged Defendant with possession of a controlled substance, methamphetamine, based on items found in his bedroom following a probation search. The district court denied Defendant's motion to suppress, concluding that Defendant was still on probation and subject to his probation terms at the time of the search. Defendant was subsequently convicted and sentenced. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Defendant did not voluntarily consent to the search, and the special needs exception to the warrant requirement did not apply; (2) Defendant was not subject to conditions of probation and was not obligated to permit the search at issue; (3) the search of Defendant's bedroom was unreasonable, and the items found therein should have been suppressed; and (4) because the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to sustain Defendant's conviction, double jeopardy did not bar a second trial.

North Dakota v. Kovalevich

Court: North Dakota Supreme Court

Citation: 2023 ND 206

Opinion Date: November 9, 2023

Judge: Douglas A. Bahr

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Sean Kovalevich appealed a district court order denying his motion to correct an illegal sentence under N.D.R.Crim.P. 35(a). Kovalevich was subject to a pre-filing order prohibiting him from filing “any new litigation or any new documents in existing litigation” without first obtaining leave of the court. The North Dakota Supreme Court treated the court’s current order as denying Kovalevich leave of court to file new documents. Orders denying leave to file were not appealable. The Supreme Court therefore dismissed Kovalevich’s appeal.

North Dakota v. Morales

Court: North Dakota Supreme Court

Citation: 2023 ND 209

Opinion Date: November 9, 2023

Judge: Daniel J. Crothers

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Bradley Morales appealed a criminal judgment entered after he pleaded guilty to murder. Morales was convicted by jury of murdering his ex-girlfriend. He was granted a new trial after it was found Morales’ right to a public trial was violated. On the fourth day of the new trial, Morales sought to enter a guilty plea. In verifying his plea was made “knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently,” Morales made a lengthy statement, admitting to stabbing the victim. He apologized to the victim’s family. Roughly nine months later, Morales moved to withdraw his plea. He was thereafter sentenced to 35 years imprisonment. Morales argued the district court erred by not addressing a statement he made at the sentencing hearing indicating he was suffering from depression and anxiety. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, concluding the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Morales’ motion to withdraw his guilty plea.

North Dakota v. Yalartai

Court: North Dakota Supreme Court

Citation: 2023 ND 208

Opinion Date: November 9, 2023

Judge: Lisa K. Fair McEvers

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Moses Ben Yalartai appealed after he pled guilty to gross sexual imposition. Yalartai argued the district court violated his right to self-representation and erred in denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, concluding the court did not abuse its discretion in denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea and Yalartai waived the right to challenge whether the court violated his right of self- representation by pleading guilty.

Driggins v. Bracy

Court: Supreme Court of Ohio

Citation: 2023-Ohio-4018

Opinion Date: November 8, 2023

Judge: Per Curiam

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing Appellant's writ of habeas corpus arguing that the sentencing court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over Appellant's case after it issued a final judgment in 2007, holding that the court of appeals did not err.

Pursuant to a plea agreement in which Appellant agreed to testify against a potential codefendant, Appellant pleaded guilty to murder with a firearm specification and aggravated robbery. The convictions were vacated based on Appellant's failure to cooperate with prosecutors. After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of murder aggravated robbery, and aggravated burglary and three-year firearm specifications. On appeal, Appellant argued that the sentencing court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over his case pursuant to State v. Gilbert, 35 N.E.3d 493 (Ohio 2014), after it issued final judgment in 2007. The court of appeals agreed but dismissed the petition because Appellant's 2007 convictions and sentence were still valid and his maximum sentence had not expired. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court of appeals did not err in dismissing the petition because Appellant was not subject to immediate release from prison or confinement.

State v. Daniel

Court: Supreme Court of Ohio

Citation: 2023-Ohio-4035

Opinion Date: November 9, 2023

Judge: DeWine

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals in this criminal case, holding that it does not violate the separation of powers doctrine to tie the judge's ability to reduce the registration period for a person convicted of arson to a recommendation from executive branch officials.

In 2012, the General Assembly passed a law codified at Ohio Rev. Code 2909.13(A) establishing a registry of people convicted of arson-related crimes that applied to those convicted of arson or aggravated arson, as well as those convicted of a related attempt or conspiracy or complicity offense. At issue was Ohio Rev. Code 2909.15(D)(2)(b), which provides a limited exception for the lifetime-registration requirement. Defendant in this case pleaded guilty to a single count of arson, for which he was required to register annually for life. At sentencing, challenged the constitutionality of the reduced-registration provision. The trial court denied the challenge, and the court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there is no separation of powers violation within Ohio's arson offender registration scheme.

Vermont v. Rodriguez

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Citation: 2023 VT 59

Opinion Date: November 9, 2023

Judge: Cohen

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Defendant Edwin Rodriquez appealed the denial of his motion to be resentenced. Defendant was charged with aggravated domestic assault and related criminal counts for physically assaulting his then-romantic partner. After defendant pled not guilty, the trial court ordered defendant to be held without bail. While awaiting trial, defendant remained incarcerated throughout the COVID-19 pandemic and unsuccessfully sought to be released on bail based on health concerns arising from conditions of his confinement. At a change-of-plea hearing in December 2021, defendant pleaded guilty to one count of aggravated domestic assault in the first degree and one count of domestic assault. As part of that plea agreement, the State agreed to a cap of twelve years of incarceration. in advance of his sentencing hearing, defendant submitted a sentencing memorandum in which he sought a 4- to 8-year sentence. Defendant referenced several mitigating factors in support of his sentence. The trial court evaluated the pertinent factors and arrived at what it considered an appropriate sentence: 9- to 12-years. On appeal, defendant argued the trial court failed to adequately consider the mitigating factors presented and improperly relied on prior uncharged conduct. Finding no reversible error, the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the sentence.

In re Pers. Restraint of Knight

Court: Washington Supreme Court

Docket: 101,068-1

Opinion Date: November 9, 2023

Judge: Pennell

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

In a prior case before the Washington Supreme Court, the Court rejected Petitioner Amanda Knight’s claim her separate convictions for felony murder (based on first-degree robbery) and first degree robbery violated the constitutional protection against double jeopardy. Double jeopardy did not apply because Knight’s felony murder and robbery convictions were premised on different conduct: the felony murder charge was based on the robbery of a safe whereas the first degree robbery was based on the robbery of a ring. Knight moved for reconsideration and that petition was denied. Here, Knight argued that given the Court’s previous holding, her conviction for felony murder had to be reversed because the jury was presented with insufficient evidence to justify a conviction for robbery of the safe. The Supreme Court concluded the basis for the felony murder conviction could not be sustained, granted Knight’s petition for relief, vacated the felony murder conviction and remanded for resentencing.

Frazier v. Ramadan

Court: Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia

Docket: 22-0223

Opinion Date: November 6, 2023

Judge: Wooton

Areas of Law: Criminal Law, Government & Administrative Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the circuit court reversing the final order of the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) upholding Respondent's administrative driver's license revocation for a period of five years for driving under the influence, holding that the circuit court erred in substituting its judgment for that of the OAH and in using its determination as a basis for overturning the OAH's decision.

After a hearing, the circuit court concluded that the OAH improperly weighed results of field sobriety tests against the negative findings of secondary chemical tests and that Respondent's expert's "unrebutted" testimony supported the negative findings of the secondary chemical test. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the OAH's factual determination that Petitioner proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent had ingested controlled substances impairing his ability to operate a motor vehicle was entitled to substantial deference; and (2) the evidence in this case supported that factual determination.

State of West Virginia v. Hagerman

Court: Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia

Docket: 22-0219

Opinion Date: November 9, 2023

Judge: Hutchison

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Hagerman used a shotgun to kill his former brother-in-law, while drinking with friends at Hagerman’s home. Charged with first-degree murder, he argued self-defense. After his conviction for second-degree murder, a lesser included offense, Hagerman discovered that six individuals who reside in or near the community of Bradshaw, where the shooting occurred, had been selected for the jury panel but the circuit court had directed the circuit clerk not to call them. The trial court denied Hagerman a new trial, stating: No juror was excluded from the case on account of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, economic status or being a qualified individual with a disability. The six jurors were from a “tight-knit community” of approximately 259 people, would generally know each other, and would be aware of the local knowledge or gossip. The court reasoned that the jurors would have likely been removed from the jury panel based on their relationships with people involved in the case.

The West Virginia Supreme Court affirmed, rejecting arguments that the circuit court violated his right to a randomly selected jury representing a fair cross-section of the community and committed plain error when it instructed the jury on the offense of voluntary manslaughter.

State of West Virginia v. Ward

Court: Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia

Docket: 22-0211

Opinion Date: November 9, 2023

Judge: Bunn

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Ward, charged with felony possession of a firearm by a prohibited person, moved to suppress evidence under the Fourth Amendment. He alleged that Raleigh County Sheriff’s Officers arrived at his mother’s residence, questioned him regarding a dispute, and asked him for identification. Ward stated he could retrieve it from “downstairs in [his] mother’s house in the [t]-shirt shop.” Both officers and Ward walked around to the door. Ward opened the door. The officers grabbed the door and followed him in. Ward then walked through another door that led into a separate room used for his t-shirt printing shop. While Ward retrieved his identification, an officer observed a firearm. Ward testified that a person standing at the entryway to the basement door would not have been able to see the firearm because it would have been obscured by two doors and a curtain. The basement was not his residence and there was a lock on the front door. Detective Queen stated that he watched Ward retrieve his identification “[f]or officer safety” although he did not have a specific reason to fear for his safety.

The West Virginia Supreme Court affirmed the denial of his motion to suppress. Officers conducted the search and seized the firearm without a warrant; the plain view and officer safety exceptions do not apply.

State v. Folse

Court: Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia

Docket: 21-0972

Opinion Date: November 7, 2023

Judge: Walker

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the circuit court dismissing Petitioner's appeal from his plea of no contest to obstructing an officer on the basis that Petitioner's no-contest plea in magistrate court resolved the case and barred Petitioner from pursuing appellate review in circuit court, holding that the circuit court erred in dismissing the appeal.

Petitioner pled no contest in magistrate court to obstructing an officer and attempted to appeal the conviction to the circuit court. The circuit court dismissed the appeal, reasoning that Petitioner's no-contest plea in magistrate court barred him from pursuing appellate review in circuit court. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) under W.Va. Code 50-5-13(a) a defendant such as Petitioner may timely appeal a conviction in magistrate court to circuit court; and (2) section 50-5-13(a) and (b) afforded Petitioner a trial de novo, to the circuit court, without a jury.

State v. Maichle

Court: Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia

Docket: 21-0943

Opinion Date: November 9, 2023

Judge: Bunn

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court vacated the sentencing order of the circuit court and remanded this case with instructions to dismiss Petitioner's conviction for malicious assault and resentence him on the remaining charges, holding that the indictment was insufficient because it did not include an essential element of the offense of malicious assault.

Before trial, Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss the malicious assault count of the indictment because it did not reference the intent to "maim, disfigure, disable or kill." The circuit court denied the motion, finding that a person may commit malicious assault (1) by maliciously shooting, stabbing, cutting, or wounding any person; or (2) by any means causing a person bodily injury with the intent to maim, disfigure, disable, or kill. The Supreme Court vacated the circuit court's sentencing order, holding (1) the intent to main, disfigure, disable, or kill is an essential element of the offenses of malicious assault and unlawful assault pursuant to W. Va. Code 61-29; and (2) therefore, the indictment in this case was insufficient.

State v. Thomas

Court: Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia

Docket: 22-0239

Opinion Date: November 8, 2023

Judge: Armstead

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Petitioner's conviction of sexual assault in the first degree following a jury trial, holding that Petitioner was not entitled to relief on his allegations of error.

Specifically, the Supreme Court held that the circuit court (1) did not err by refusing to instruct the jury on the offense of attempted sexual assault in the first degree; (2) did not err when it denied Petitioner’s motion for a mistrial regarding a photographic identification; (3) did not abuse its discretion when it denied an in camera hearing on the suggestibility of the pretrial photographic identification; and (4) did not err when it denied Petitioner's motions for a mistrial due to vouching.

State v. White

Court: Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia

Docket: 22-0197

Opinion Date: November 7, 2023

Judge: Bunn

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court finding that Petitioner violated the conditions of his supervised release and revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to a two-year term in prison, holding that United States v. Haymond, 588 U.S. __ (2019), does not apply to a supervised release revocation pursuant to W. Va. Code 61-12-26 because section 61-12-26 does not require a mandatory minimum sentence upon revocation.

Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the revocation of Petitioner's supervised release pursuant to W. Va. Code 62-12-26 did not violate Petitioner's constitutional rights; (2) the circuit court did not err by denying Petitioner's motion to dismiss the petition or by sentencing Petitioner to a term of imprisonment without holding a jury trial when revoking his supervised release; and (3) the circuit court did not clearly err in finding by clear and convincing evidence that Petitioner conspired to deliver crack cocaine, in violation of conditions of his supervised release.