Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Pro se prisoner Defendant Austin Saucedo-Murillo sought a certificate of appealability (COA) to challenge a district court's dismissal of his petition for the writ of habeas corpus as time barred. Pursuant to a plea agreement that contained a provision waiving the right to appeal, Defendant pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to possess marijuana with intent to distribute. The court sentenced Defendant to ten years in prison followed by five years of supervised release. In his appeal to the Tenth Circuit, Defendant did not allege any conduct on his attorney's part which would have made the appeal waiver in his plea agreement unenforcible. Furthermore, the Court reviewed that plea agreement and the applicable legal authority that governed Defendant's case, and found that indeed, Defendant sought the writ one year too late. With no showing of the denial of his constitutional rights, the Court denied Defendant's request for a COA and dismissed his appeal.

Pro se prisoner Defendant-Appellant Jesus Legarda sought a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the district court's denial of his motion to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence. In March 2006, Defendant pled guilty to participation in a conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine; in March 2008 he was sentenced to prison for 210 months. His counsel filed an "Anders" brief on appeal; the Tenth Circuit dismissed the appeal for want of a non-frivolous ground and allowed counsel to withdraw. Defendant argued on appeal that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his counsel failed to object to the length of his sentence, and that his attorney permitted him to plead guilty without seeking a competency evaluation to ensure he was fit to enter a plea and test whether he was entitled to a downward departure from the sentencing guidelines. Finding no violation of his constitutional rights, and that "reasonable jurists could not debate" the district court's judgment in this case, the Tenth Circuit affirmed Defendant's conviction and sentence.

Pro se former-prisoner Petitioner-Appellant Shawn Staats appealed a district court's sua sponte dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. 1983 complaint against various employees of the James Crabtree Correctional Center (JCCC). Petitioner argued that the JCCC improperly calculated his release date, thereby imprisoning him for approximately ten months beyond his proper release date. He contended this error violated his Fourth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The district court dismissed Petitioner's first complaint without prejudice for failing to meet the pleading requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court did not issue a separate judgment. Petitioner then filed a second complaint containing factual allegations along with seven supplemental documents. The district court ordered the second complaint and materials stricken because of the court's earlier decision on Petitioner's first complaint. The court noted that the second complaint was erroneously docketed as an amended complaint, and that it did not authorize the filing of an amended complaint. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit concluded that Petitioner could correct the defect in his complaint, and that the district court abused its discretion for failing to dismiss the original with leave to amend. Accordingly, the Court remanded the case to the district court to allow Petitioner to amend his complaint.

Pro se prisoner Plaintiff-Appellant Douglas Burns appealed two district court orders that denied him relief for his civil rights suit brought against prison officials. Due to a clerical error in the district court, Plaintiff's filing fee was not recorded until five months after he paid it. In the meantime, a magistrate judge ordered Plaintiff to file an amended complaint within thirty days. Plaintiff failed to file the amended complaint, and the district court dismissed it, citing Plaintiff's failure to pay the filing fee, file the amended complaint or prosecute his case. According to Plaintiff, multiple medical emergencies, transfers between infirmaries and visits to several hospitals prevented him from learning of the district court's order to file the amended complaint. Plaintiff filed a motion for enlargement of time and relief from judgment, but the district court dismissed it as moot. The court learned of the filing fee recording error and vacated its order to the extent that it rested on that ground. The court also considered Plaintiff's motion for enlargement of time, but ultimately dismissed it, finding "no extraordinary circumstances warranting relief from judgment." Plaintiff then appealed the matter to the Tenth Circuit. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit concluded the district court erred in labeling Plaintiff's motion for enlargement of time as moot, and lacked jurisdiction to vacate that order after a notice of appeal was filed. The Court therefore vacated the district court's order insofar as it denied Plaintiff's motion. The Court remanded the case back to the district court for consideration of Plaintiff's motion after he was allowed to submit evidence to support his claim that he never received the district court's order that he submit an amended complaint.

Pro se prisoner Petitioner-Appellant Tommie Charles Bradley sought to appeal a district court's dismissal of his habeas petition. He raised several issues on appeal, including: (1) the trial judge erred by denying his challenge for cause to a juror during voir dire; and (2) the trial judge erred by denying his motion for a mistrial after a juror revealed that her daughter had been present at the scene of the crime. Petitioner also claimed he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Petitioner sought a certificate of appealability (COA) from the Tenth Circuit. Finding that Petitioner failed to demonstrate that the district court's resolution of his constitutional claims was wrong or reasonably debatable, the Tenth Circuit denied his request for a COA and dismissed his appeal.

Defendant Ronald Romero appealed his sentence imposed for assaulting a federal officer. Defendant was serving an unrelated prison sentence on a prior conviction when he attacked Shawn Boyd, a Bureau of Indian Affairs corrections officer, by spitting on him, gouging one of his eyes, and scratching his face and neck. He was indicted on one count of assaulting a federal officer and a jury found him guilty of that offense. The presentence investigation report (PSIR) detailed Defendant's lengthy criminal record, which included 20 prior convictions. The probation officer calculated his total offense level as 15 and his criminal history category as II, yielding an advisory Guidelines imprisonment range of 21 to 27 months. Defendant responded to the PSIR by affirmatively stating that he had no objection to its content. The government moved for an upward departure from the Guidelines range. Defendant did not file a written response to the government's motion. Having found that an upward departure was appropriate under the Sentencing Guidelines, the district court sentenced Defendant to 51 months' imprisonment. On appeal to the Tenth Circuit, Defendant argued that the district court erred in departing from the Guidelines' criminal history categories from "II" to "VI." Upon review, the Tenth Circuit gave "substantial deference to the district court's factual determinations" when it calculated Defendant's sentence. Finding that Defendant failed to preserve his objections to the district court's departure analysis, the Court affirmed the district court's judgment.

Following trial, a jury convicted Defendant Wallace Laverne Lawrence III on: (1) seven counts of wire fraud/aiding and abetting involving the use of internet ads in a scheme to defraud persons seeking help in paying bills; (2) two counts of fraud in connection with access devices/aiding and abetting, and involving the use of stolen credit-card, debit-card, and bank numbers to obtain goods and services; and (3) one count of aggravated identity theft/aiding and abetting. Defendant appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction on the wire fraud and identity theft counts, and objecting to the use of sentence enhancements for obstruction of justice and being a leader or organizer. Upon careful review of the district court record and Defendant's appellate brief, the Tenth Circuit found no merit to any of Defendant's arguments, and affirmed the district court's judgement.

A jury convicted Linda Abramson-Schmeiler of five counts of filing a false tax return. The charges were based on her alleged failure to report all of the income she received from her business of "diversionary sales" (purchasing and then reselling large quantities of hair-care products). The government alleged that she falsely underreported her business's gross receipts or sales, by more than $1.4 million during the years 2003, 2004, and 2005, which then resulted in her falsely underreporting her personal income for the same amount. At trial, Defendant’s main defense was that she did not intentionally underreport her sales and income. She admitted that she had failed to report payments her business received for selling hair-care products. But she asserted that many of her diversionary sales were in cash and unrecorded and that she lost money or broke even on many of these transactions. She testified that when she did not make money on a transaction, she would consider it a "wash" and she would not report the transaction to her accountant for reporting on her income tax returns. The jury convicted Defendant on all counts. She was sentenced to thirty-six months’ imprisonment on each count, to be served concurrently, and ordered to pay restitution. Defendant challenged her convictions on three grounds: 1) the district court erred in precluding important lay witness testimony; 2) the district court erred in refusing to give defendant’s good-faith jury instruction; and 3) the government committed prosecutorial misconduct throughout the trial. Finding that Defendant failed to show any error at trial, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision.

Pro se prisoner Plaintiff-Appellant Aggie Joe Gallegos appealed the dismissal of his civil rights action brought against various Albuquerque police officers and other officials in connection with his 2007 arrest. Plaintiff was riding his bicycle in Albuquerque when he rode past a stop sign without stopping. Albuquerque police officer Defendant Byron Economidy was on patrol and, upon observing Plaintiff, he engaged his emergency lights in an attempt to stop Plaintiff. Plaintiff got off his bicycle and talked to Officer Economidy. But talks broke down and a chase ensued. Plaintiff abadoned the bicycle, and while running away from the officer, he threw things out of his pockets and ignored commands to stop running. Other police officers began arriving on the scene to assist. Officer Economidy and Plaintiff got into a physical altercation which ended with Plaintiff getting "tased" in the back. Plaintiff disputed the officer's account of the arrest, and brought this civil rights suit against the five officers involved in his arrest, in addition to the police chief, the mayor and the City of Albuquerque itself. Plaintiff argued that the officers used excessive force amounting to physical and psychological torture, and the City was vicariously liable for its officers' actions. The district court dismissed his case. On appeal to the Tenth Circuit, Plaintiff argued that he was restrained in shackles in front of the jury, thereby causing him prejudice and rendering his trial fundamentally unfair. Finding no evidence that the trial court permitted Plaintiff to be in shackles in front of the jury, or that the trial court abused its discretion in the conduct of trial, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment.

Plaintiff-Appellant Daniel Larson appealed the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. 1983 action for failing to state a claim. Appellant is a Colorado Sherriff's Deputy. Tina Henson is his aunt. Ms. Henson had previously resided with Michael Suchan at Mr. Suchan’s residence, where she and Mr. Suchan had shared a volatile relationship. Their relationship apparently ended, and Ms. Henson had left some personal items at Mr. Suchan’s residence. After Ms. Henson tried to retrieve her personal items, she sought the help of Appellant, her nephew. The two went to Mr. Suchan's place unannounced, and finding the door unlocked (believing Mr. Suchan was not home), entered. Mr. Suchan was home, and began yelling at Ms. Henson. Appellant called 911 and Defendants Michael Agos and Hans Gross, both deputy sheriffs in a neighboring county were among those who responded to the call. Appellant argued that he could not be arrested for criminal trespass, inasmuch as he claimed Ms. Henson was a resident of Mr. Suchan’s house and that both she and Appellant had a right to be on the premises. The deputies then informed Appellant that he was being arrested for criminal trespass, and when he protested this, Appellant was told that he was being arrested "because of politics." Appellant ultimately filed suit in Colorado district court, claiming he was subject to an unreasonable search and seizure as well as malicious prosecution. Defendants moved to dismiss. The district court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss, rejecting Mr. Larson’s allegation that Deputies Agos and Gross violated the Fourth Amendment when they arrested him. The court concluded that the deputies had probable cause to believe that Appellant had committed criminal trespass. The court then determined that because Appellant "had not demonstrated that Defendants Agos and Gross committed a Fourth Amendment violation, Arapahoe County cannot be held liable for the lawful conduct of its officers." Upon review, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court for substantially the same reasons stated in its order.