Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff Joseph Zbegner appealed a district court order dismissing without prejudice his claims against Allied Property and Casualty Insurance Co. (Allied) as not ripe for adjudication. Plaintiff was in an automobile accident in Boulder, Colorado in 2007. At that time he had an automobile insurance policy with Allied, which included underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage. In his complaint against Allied, Plaintiff alleged that he suffered severe injuries as a result of the accident and sustained damages exceeding $150,000. He claimed the driver of the other car was the person at fault in the accident, but was underinsured. Allstate paid Plaintiff $351.74 for property damage and offered him $2,145.00 to settle his injury claim. Plaintiff did not accept Allstate’s offer and did not resolve his claim against the driver. After Allied declined his claim, Plaintiff filed this action. Allied moved to dismiss Plaintiff's claim, asserting it could not know the amount due Plaintiff for UIM benefits until he had resolved his claim against Allstate, the driver's insurer. Because his claims were contingent on a future event, Allied contended they were not ripe for adjudication. The district court granted Allied’s motion, and dismissed Plaintiff's claims without prejudice. On appeal to the Tenth Circuit, Plaintiff contended the district court misconstrued Colorado law in its ripeness analysis. After careful review, the Tenth Circuit concluded the district court was correct in its analysis of Colorado law, and that Plaintiff's claim was not yet ripe for review.

Pro se prisoner Defendant-Appellant Xavier Arriola-Perez sought a certificate of appealability (COA) to challenge a district court's denial of his habeas petition. Defendant was convicted on two counts related to the possession and distribution of methamphetamine in 2003, for which he was sentenced to 400 months' imprisonment. In 2007, Defendant filed a motion to extend the time for filing his habeas petition which was granted by the district court. Late that year, Defendant filed his petition, then filed a Rule 15(a) motion seeking leave to amend. The district court found that his proposed amendments did not relate back to his original habeas petition, and were deemed untimely. Construing the 15(a) motion as a motion for leave to file a successive petition for post-conviction relief, the district court transferred the motion to the Tenth Circuit while denying Defendant relief. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgement. Defendant then petitioned the Court for a COA, arguing the district court erred in treating the Rule 15(a) motion as a successive petition for post conviction relief, and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel in defending himself on the possession and distribution charges. Finding no substantial showing that his constitutional rights had been denied, the Tenth Circuit denied Defendant's request for a COA, and dismissed his appeal.

After Defendant Gilberto Cruz-Arellanes was sentenced for illegally reentering the country, the Sentencing Commission issued an amendment (Amendment 740) to the illegal reentry guideline. The amendment discusses when and under what conditions a district court might wish to depart downward due to a defendant’s cultural assimilation. Seeking the benefit of this new guidance, Defendant filed a motion for a sentence reduction. The district court denied the motion. Defendant appealed, arguing the court abused its discretion in not applying the amended sentencing guidelines. Finding no abuse of discretion, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's order and Defendant's sentence.

Pro se Plaintiff-Appellant Adam Kartiganer appealed two district court orders that ultimately dismissed his 42 U.S.C. 1983 claims against several law enforcement members. In 2006, Plaintiff was arrested during a traffic stop in Walsenburg, Colorado. Evidence was seized during the stop, including financial instruments belonging to individuals other than Plaintiff. Based on the seized evidence,the district attorney's office decided probable cause existed to file felony charges against Plaintiff. A public defender was assigned to Plaintiff's case, who promptly filed a motion to suppress the evidence seized during the stop. The court found no probable cause, and the DA's office dismissed the charges. Plaintiff sued alleging he had been falsely arrested, falsely imprisoned and subjected to malicious prosecution for five months before the charges were dropped. A federal magistrate granted defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the claims against them. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit carefully reviewed the "lengthy and thorough" decisions by the magistrate judge, as adopted and modified by the district court. The Court agreed completely with the reasoning and conclusions contained therein, and affirmed the district court’s orders dismissing the claims in this case.

Pro se Petitioner-Appellant Troy Short sought a certificate of appealability (COA) to challenge a district court's denial of his motion for post-conviction relief. A Colorado state jury convicted Petitioner on one count of second degree burglary and one count of theft. On direct appeal to the Colorado Court of Appeals (CCA), Petitioner asserted the trial court erred when it refused to appoint substitute counsel. In particular, Petitioner asserted he was entitled to substitute counsel based on a complete breakdown in communication with existing counsel. The CCA rejected Petitioner's claim of error, concluding the record fully supported the trial court’s determination that communications between Short and his counsel had not broken down and that perceived friction on the part of Petitioner did not hinder counsel’s ability to adequately present the case to a jury. The Colorado Supreme Court denied certiorari review. Because Petitioner did not make "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right," the Tenth Circuit denied his request for a COA and dismissed his appeal.

Petitioner-Appellant Mikeal Stine sought to challenge a district court's calculation of his sentence. He argued that the sentencing court mistakenly designated him a career offender based on two prior escape convictions. Petitioner's strategy to challenge his sentence was to challenge the underlying legality of his sentence rather than how it was executed, a tactic which he tried before and lost at the district court. Petitioner thus brought his appeal before the Tenth Circuit under 28 U.S.c. 2255(e), the statute's so-called "savings clause" which would have allowed him to bring his second or successive motion for post-conviction relief under section 2241 when 2255 was "inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention." Upon review, the Tenth Circuit found that the savings clause was inapplicable to Petitioner's case, and held that the district court thus properly held Petitioner's effort to invoke section 2241 impermissible, and correctly dismissed his petition.

Defendant-appellant Dennis Enriquez Lopez-Avila was charged with unlawful re-entry after deportation following an aggravated felony conviction. Defendant entered a guilty plea after reaching an agreement with the prosecution. The district court rejected Defendant's request for a sentence below that calculated under the advisory guidelines and sentenced him to thirty-seven months' imprisonment. Defendant argued on appeal that his sentence was procedurally unreasonable because the district court erroneously concluded that it could not consider the disparities created by the existence of fast-track programs when determining his sentence. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit found that Defendant presented a "generalized argument" which alone is not sufficient to justify a variance from the sentencing guidelines because of different sentencing guidelines for fast-track programs. Therefore, the Court rejected Defendant's claim of error and affirmed the district court's decision.

A federal jury convicted Defendant Chester Randall, Jr. of conspiracy to participate in a racketeer influenced and corrupt organization The district court sentenced Defendant in May 2010. Defendant’s prior convictions yielded six criminal history points. The sentencing guidelines imposed an additional criminal history point because Defendant "committed the instant offense less than two years after release from imprisonment" on a qualifying sentence. The district court sentenced Defendant to 46 months, the low end of the applicable guideline range. Defendant’s counsel filed a notice of appeal from Defendant’s conviction and sentence within the fourteen-day filing period. Meanwhile, Amendment 742 to the sentencing guidelines took effect in November 2010. Amendment 742 eliminated recency points. Three weeks later, Defendant filed a pro se "Motion to Modify Sentence Pending Appeal." Defendant argued that Amendment 742 should be applied retroactively to reduce his sentence to 37 months. The district court concluded that it had no jurisdiction to consider Defendant’s motion because his notice of appeal from his conviction divested the court of jurisdiction over the case. Furthermore, the court concluded that even if no appeal were pending, it would have no authority to reduce Defendant’s sentence because "[a] guideline amendment is applied retroactively only when it has been specifically listed" in the sentencing guidelines. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit concluded that the district court was correct in its analysis that it lacked jurisdiction over Defendant's appeal. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the district court's judgment dismissing Defendant's appeal.

An Oklahoma state jury found Defendant George Ochoa guilty of two counts of first degree murder and sentenced him to death. On direct appeal, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed. After exhausting his state post-conviction remedies, Defendant petitioned the federal district court for habeas relief. The district court denied the petition in an "extensive" order. Defendant then appealed to the Tenth Circuit. Defendant raised five alleged errors from his trial that he maintained warranted habeas relief. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit found that the majority of Defendant's claims were foreclosed by the court's decision that denied habeas relief to Defendant's co-defendant. Taking each of his issues in turn, the Tenth Circuit found no error in the lower courts' decisions or denial of post-conviction relief. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the federal district court's order that denied Defendant habeas relief.

Petitioner Abidan Gedioni Pacaja Vicente, a Guatemalan citizen, sought judicial review of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) order that affirmed the Immigration Judge's (IJ) removal order against him. Both denied his claims for asylum, restriction on removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). At the IJ hearing, Petitioner testified that he was afraid of guerrilla violence against himself and his family in his home country dating as far back as 2002. The IJ first concluded Petitioner's asylum application was untimely and further determined that Petitioner had not established extraordinary circumstances to excuse the untimely filing. In an alternative ruling, the IJ denied Petitioner's petition because he failed to establish a nexus between the 2002 event and either a political opinion or membership in a particular social group. The BIA affirmed on the latter ground. Upon review of the IJ and BIA record, the Tenth Circuit concluded that Petitioner failed to carry his burden of proof to overcome the removal order against him. The Court denied Petitioner's request for review.