Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant-Appellant Mario Casas-Tapia is a citizen of Mexico who lawfully immigrated to the United States with his parents when he was six months old. He was admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident, but he lost that status following his criminal convictions while a teenager. In 1998, at the age of eighteen, he pled guilty to misdemeanor assault and first-degree criminal trespass, an aggravated felony, and was deported. His immediate family remained in the United States. After living in Mexico for five years, Defendant returned illegally and resettled near his family. Since returning, he has been convicted of several misdemeanor and felony offenses. In 2010, he pled guilty to unlawful reentry of a removed alien subsequent to an aggravated felony conviction. In the presentence report, the probation officer calculated the sentencing range at thirty to thirty-seven months and recommended a sentence at the high end of the range based on Defendant's criminal history. Defendant moved for a below-guidelines sentence based on cultural assimilation. The court imposed a thirty-month sentence. The sole issue on appeal was whether the district court failed to recognize the scope of its legal authority to apply a downward departure for cultural assimilation. Because the Tenth Circuit concluded that the district court's denial was discretionary, the Court lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal.

Appellant Philip Allen Worack, challenged the sufficiency of the evidence that resulted in his conviction of two counts of filing fraudulent and false federal income tax returns. For tax years 1998-2002, Appellant reported income from LKS, a company in which he was president and treasurer, and owned half the stock. LKS listed Appellant's income on its 1099 forms for his personal income taxes. During that time period LKS set up multiple foreign-based business entities that Appellant helped manage. Once the entities folded, Appellant assumed the assets and used them to pay for his personal expenses. He did not report any of the money taken from the liquidated companies' bank accounts as income. Appellant argued that the money from the entities were corporately owned, and the monies paid were for his business related expenses. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit found sufficient evidence for a rational trier of fact to find Appellant guilty. The Court affirmed Appellant's convictions.

Pro se prisoner Petitioner Darrell Stuart sought a certificate of appealability (COA) to challenge a district court's denial of his application for habeas relief. Petitioner pled guilty in 2007 to two counts of sexual abuse of a child and was sentenced to two one-to-fifteen year terms of imprisonment. Petitioner did not appeal, and his conviction became final. One year later, Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief in state court. It was dismissed as untimely, and Petitioner appealed, culminating in a denial of certiorari by the Utah Supreme Court. Following that denial, Petitioner applied to the Tenth Circuit for habeas relief. Finding that Petitioner made no "equitable tolling" argument before the district court, and despite his argument to the Tenth Circuit that he was unaware of the statutory deadline to file for post conviction relief, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal.

Pro se prisoner Petitioner Michael Moehring sought a certificate of appealability (COA) to challenge a district court's dismissal of his claims for post conviction relief. The district court dismissed two of Petitioner's claims as procedurally barred and denied his third on the merits. Petitioner was convicted after pleading guilty to attempted first-degree murder and a crime-of-violence sentencing enhancement. Shortly before the sentencing, he filed a pro se motion to withdraw his plea and for the appointment of new defense counsel. He alleged that the plea was coerced and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel for alleged bad advisement of the risks of going to trial. The trial court denied Petitioner's motion to withdraw his plea, and sentenced him to 38 years in prison. Petitioner's motion for relief followed which the district court denied and the state court of appeals affirmed. Upon review by the Tenth Circuit, the Court concluded that no reasonable jurist could debate the correctness of the district court in dismissing Petitioner's claim. Accordingly, the Court denied Petitioner's request for a COA and dismissed his appeal.

Kansas state prisoner Petitioner Joe Gara sought a certificate of appealability (COA) to challenge a district court's denial of his petition for habeas relief on the alternative grounds of exhaustion and timeliness. Petitioner pled guilty to robbery and attempted aggravated robbery, receiving a sentence of 32 months in prison. In 2001, he pled guilty to six additional counts of rape and one count each of robbery, aggravated robbery, and battery, receiving a sentence of 420 months in prison. Both sentences were to run concurrently. Petitioner did not directly appeal either sentence. In 2007, Petitioner filed a state habeas motion alleging that he had intended to plead guilty by reason of insanity, but his lawyer would not allow him to do so. The state district court denied his motion, concluding there was no substantial question of law or triable issue of fact and that the files and records conclusively showed he was not entitled to relief. Counsel was appointed for the purpose of allowing an out-of-time appeal to the Kansas Court of Appeals, which subsequently affirmed the state district court’s ruling. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit agreed with the state district court's ruling: "this case does not present one of those 'rare and exceptional circumstances' in which the untimely filing of a federal habeas petition should be excused." The Court denied Petitioner's application for a COA and dismissed his appeal.

Federal prisoner Plaintiff David Earl Antelope appealed the dismissal of his claims against the United States as well as the warden and three employees of the federal prison in Florence, Colorado, alleging failure to provide medical care in violation of the Eighth Amendment. He sought damages from the individuals and injunctive relief against the United States. Plaintiff filed his complaint under "Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics," (403 U.S. 388 (1971)) against the warden and three medical providers at the prison. The complaint alleged defects in the treatment he had received for his documented mental illness, and it requested compensatory and punitive damages, transfer to a suitable medical facility, and an injunction ordering necessary medical treatment. The district court found that none of the prison officials' alleged failures could support an Eighth Amendment claim. On appeal Plaintiff argued that the district court should not have granted the motion to dismiss because "[t]he Eleventh Amendment does not bar suit against the defendant[s] in their individual and official capacities." And he argued that summary judgment was improper because there was a genuine issue of material fact whether Defendants were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit substantially agreed with the district court's reasoning in dismissing Plaintiff's claims.

Pro se prisoner Petitioner Calvin Cheeks sought a certificate of appealability to challenge a district court's order that denied him habeas relief. A Colorado jury convicted Petitioner of armed robbery and other crimes based on evidence seized during a search of Petitioner's residence following his arrest. To conduct the search, police obtained a warrant for a "multi-commercial use building" located at "3040 South Academy Boulevard" which Petitioner had given as his primary address. Upon entering through a door marked "3040," officers made two discoveries: First, a piece of mail on the floor listed Petitioner's name at "3044 South Academy Boulevard.” Second, the officers saw the painted number "3044" over the inside of the door through which they had entered. Based on this information, one of the detectives revised the search warrant affidavit to cover "3044 South Academy Boulevard." The judge issued a second warrant with the "3044" address, and the officers seized various incriminating items from the premises. Petitioner filed a motion to suppress this evidence, arguing that the first warrant lacked sufficient particularity and that the second warrant was tainted by the first. After the jury found Petitioner guilty, he appealed the trial court’s denial of his suppression motion to the Colorado Court of Appeals. The state appellate court agreed with Petitioner that the first warrant was overbroad, but determined that the second warrant was valid, and the search lawful under the "independent source" doctrine. Accordingly, the court affirmed Petitioner's conviction. Petitioner subsequently filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus in federal district court, again asserting that the trial court admitted evidence in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. The district court concluded that it was barred from reaching the merits of Petitioner's claim because Petitioner had a full and fair opportunity to litigate that claim in state court. Upon review of the district court order, the Tenth Circuit concluded that the district court did not err in concluding Petitioner's claim was barred from further review. The Court denied Petitioner's request for a COA and dismissed his appeal.

Pro se prisoner Petitioner Nelson Lynch sought a certificate of appealability to challenge a district court's dismissal of his application of habeas relief. Defendant was sentenced to forty years of imprisonment for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute after having been convicted of two or more felonies. In 2006, he pursued relief from this conviction. In 2011, using the federal district court’s form for habeas applications he asserted that the state court committed plain error in enhancing his sentence under an invalid habitual offender provision. The district court concluded that the application attempted to assert unauthorized second or successive post-conviction relief claims, and denied his request for a COA. Petitioner then applied for a COA from the Tenth Circuit. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit found that Petitioner attacked the validity of his habitual-offender sentence, rather than the manner in which the sentence is being executed, the district court correctly considered the application as a successive or unauthorized application for post-conviction relief. Defendant attempted to reargue the merits of his underlying claims that the court erred in sentencing him. Because no reasonable jurist could debate the district court's decisions in this case, the Court denied Petitioner's request for a COA and dismissed his appeal.

Defendant Oscar Aureliano Pena-Valencia sought a certificate of appealability (COA) to challenge a district court's dismissal of his motion for post-conviction relief. Defendant entered into an agreement with the government and pled guilty to reentry as a previously removed alien. As part of the plea agreement, he waived his right to raise a collateral attack on his sentence except on the ground of ineffective assistance of counsel. The district court sentenced him to 46 months’ imprisonment. He appealed his sentence but the Tenth Circuit dismissed the appeal as untimely. Defendant filed his motion for post-conviction relief in district court, claiming that he was denied his right to effective assistance of counsel because his trial counsel failed to conduct a thorough examination into the facts of the case, to interrogate witnesses, to move to suppress evidence, and to apprise him of his "substantial rights and potential defenses" in addition to failing to challenge the Presentence Report and other matters that were ultimately used in calculating his sentence. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit found that "no reasonable jurist could dispute" the district court's determination that Defendant did not adequately allege an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim, and that his other claims were barred by the waiver in his plea agreement. Accordingly, the Court denied Defendant's application for a COA and dismissed his appeal.

Defendant Davey Joe Sutton sought a certificate of appealability (COA) to challenge a district court's denial of his petition for habeas relief. Defendant was a former Oklahoma state prisoner. In 2004, he was convicted by a jury of witness intimidation for which he was sentenced to one year imprisonment with the last six months suspended. Among the issues Defendant raised on appeal to the Tenth Circuit, he claimed that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction and that there were too many errors prejudicial errors at trial. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit concluded that none of the grounds Defendant raised on appeal rose to the level of a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right as required for a COA. Accordingly, the Court denied Defendant's request for a COA and dismissed his appeal.