Criminal Law News Headlines

Case Summaries

Criminal Law & Procedure

[09/03] Babick v. Berghuis
District court's denial of defendant's petition for habeas relief from his convictions for arson and first-degree felony murder, as well as a sentence of two terms of life imprisonment without possibility of parole, is affirmed where: 1) defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claim is without merit as he has shown no prejudice as a result of his trial counsel's failure to produce an arson expert in support of his not-arson defense; 2) district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's request for an evidentiary hearing; 3) defendant's claim, that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate the basis of a witness's testimony regarding the time of defendant's visit to the house that burned down, is rejected; and 4) defendant's claims of prosecutorial misconduct are rejected.

[09/02] US v. Beale
Defendants' convictions for conspiracy to prevent by intimidation a judicial officer from discharging her official duties, and obstruction of justice, are affirmed where: 1) the evidence was sufficient to convict defendants of conspiracy to prevent by force, intimidation or threat, an officer of the U.S. from discharging her duties; 2) the First Amendment did not bar defendants' convictions because the conduct underlying the convictions was an unprotected true threat; and 3) the jury was advised more than once about the protections afforded by the First Amendment.

[09/02] US v. Holmes
Defendant's convictions for being a felon in possession of a firearm, and for possessing with intent to distribute in excess of five grams of crack cocaine, are affirmed in part where the evidence was sufficient to overcome a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support defendant's conviction on the felon-in-possession charge. However, the convictions are reversed in part where neither defendant nor his attorney on his behalf made a clear and intentional waiver of defendant's rights to confrontation that would allow the full extent of the confidential informant's statements read by an officer.

[09/02] US v. Rea
District court's conviction of defendants for conspiracy to distribute in excess of 500 grams of a mixture containing methamphetamine and other related offenses, and their sentences are affirmed in part and vacated in part where: 1) because the government concedes defendant's argument, that the conspiracy alleged in his indictment is a lesser included offense of the continuing criminal enterprise (CCE) and that, along with a special assessment for each, his concurrent sentences thus amount to cumulative punishment not authorized by Congress, defendant's conviction and sentence for conspiracy are vacated; 2) the evidence presented against defendant was sufficient to justify his continuing criminal enterprise conviction; 3) district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the statements made by defendant's co-conspirators and any error related to an agent's testimony was harmless; 4) district court did not plainly err by imposing the firearm sentencing enhancement upon the defendant as the government demonstrated that the guns were found in close proximity to drug paraphernalia and that defendant dealt in large quantities of meth on a frequent basis; 5) sufficient evidence supported co-defendant's conviction for conspiracy as based on the evidence, any reasonable juror could find that the relationship between the defendants exceeded that of a buyer-seller relationship; and 6) district court's calculation errors did not affect co-defendant's substantial rights.

[09/02] US v. Ritchie Special Cred. Invs., Ltd.
In intervenor's application to intervene in an adversary proceeding initiated by the government pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1345 against the alleged author of a Ponzi scheme, the denial of the application is affirmed where: 1) the litigation progressed substantially between the initiation of these proceedings and intervenor's second motion to intervene; and 2) intervenor had knowledge of all the facts surrounding the district court's injunction, and failed to take issue with it when first presented with an opportunity to do so.

[09/02] Shenfeld v. State of Florida
In proceedings involving defendant's motion to dismiss affidavits of violation of probation, claiming that because he was arrested without a warrant and no arrest warrant for the violations was issued during his probationary period, his probation was never tolled and the trial court lacked jurisdiction to revoke his probation once the probationary period expired, a decision of the Fourth District that the trial court had jurisdiction is affirmed as the 2007 revision to section j948.06(1), Florida Statutes (2007) was procedural in nature and its application in defendant's revocation of probation proceeding did not violate the prohibition on ex post facto laws.

[09/02] Camacho-Cruz v. Holder
In a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' (BIA) denial of cancellation of removal because of petitioner's conviction for assault with a deadly weapon under Nevada state law, the petition is dismissed where petitioner’s conviction was categorically a crime of violence.

[09/02] US v. Millis
Defendant's conviction under 50 C.F.R. section 27.94(a) for placing full, gallon-sized plastic bottles of water on trails in the Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge to help alleviate exposure deaths among undocumented immigrants crossing into the U.S. is reversed where the term "garbage" within the context of the regulation was sufficiently ambiguous that the rule of lenity would apply in this case.

[09/02] US v. Ellis
District court's decision to sentence the defendant under the Armed Career Criminal Act, based on defendant's three previous convictions for a violent felony, including a previous juvenile adjudication for assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, is affirmed as, it was not blatant error for the sentencing court to take defendant's juvenile adjudication into consideration for the purpose of applying the ACCA, as given that the state law provides that juvenile adjudications are not "set aside' for the purpose of imposing sentence is later criminal proceedings against the defendant, it is far from clear that Massachusetts juvenile convictions should never be treated as predicate offense under the ACCA.

[09/02] Wall v. US
In petitioner's motion for leave to file a successive 28 U.S.C. section 2255 habeas petition challenging his child pornography conviction, the motion is denied where the claims in petitioner's first section 2255 petition were, in substance, incorporated into his subsequent direct appeal, and thus his proposed section 2255 petition was not "second or successive."

[09/02] US v. Taylor
In a conviction of defendant for armed bank robbery, district court's imposition of an enhancement for physically restraining a teller in sentencing defendant to 110-months' imprisonment is affirmed as, whether a pointed gun is used to move a person into an unlocked room and keep him there, or used to move a person from one part of the robbery scene to another, the person's freedom of movement is restrained as effectively as by shoving or dragging him into a room and locking the door. However, the judgment is modified as the district court erred in ordering the defendant to participate in the Inmate Financial Responsibility Program, as the participation is voluntary.

Read More

Sentencing

Read More