Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Pro se prisoner Petitioner Reyes Terrones-Lopez sought a certificate of appealability to challenge a district court's dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. Petitioner was indicted by a federal grand jury on ten counts alleging drug offenses. In compliance with an agreement with the government, he pled guilty to three counts charging distribution of cocaine. He waived his right to appeal or raise a collateral challenge to his guilty plea or sentence, except that he retained the right to challenge a sentence above the guidelines range. The district court entered judgment sentencing Petitioner on the three counts to 108 months in prison and dismissing the remaining counts. On appeal, Petitioner raised several claims for relief relating to alleged ineffective assistance of counsel and the timeliness of his attempts to appeal the sentence. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit found nothing in the record to suggest he received ineffective assistance of counsel, and that his motions for reconsideration were indeed untimely. Accordingly, the Court denied Petitioner's request for a COA and dismissed his appeal.

Pro se prisoner Petitioner Brandon Williams sought a certificate of appealability (COA) to challenge a district court's dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. In 2000, Petitioner pled guilty to one count of first-degree murder in Oklahoma state district court for which he was sentenced to life in prison. After his sentence, Petitioner moved to withdraw his plea. Petitioner then unsuccessfully petitioned for the writ of habeas corpus, denied for being untimely. Petitioner then turned to the Tenth Circuit for a COA to challenge the district court's dismissal of his petition. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit concluded Petitioner indeed filed his petitions outside the statute of limitations. As such, the Court denied Petitioner's request for a COA and dismissed his appeal.

Pro se prisoner Defendant Darrell Washington sought to appeal the district court's dismissal of his motion for post-conviction relief. The court found Defendant's motion was essentially an unauthorized second or successive motion for such relief. Defendant was sentenced to 360 months' imprisonment for drugs and weapons charges. Defendant contended that the district court erred by not considering his "legal-innocence" issues before it dismissed his motion. Defendant applied to the Tenth Circuit for a certificate of appealability (COA) to challenge the district court. "Because at its core Mr. Washington’s Rule 60(b) motion sought renewed consideration of claims already decided against him," the Tenth Circuit found that the district court properly dismissed Defendant's motion for lack of jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court denied Defendant's application for a COA and dismissed his appeal.

The issue before the Tenth Circuit in this case was the government's motion to enforce an appeal waiver contained in Defendant Shawndell Harrison's plea agreement. The defendant pled guilty to one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition. The district court sentenced defendant to 188 months' imprisonment. This sentence was below the statutory maximum of life imprisonment and at the high end of the 180 to 188 month advisory guideline range determined by the district court. In his plea agreement, Defendant "knowingly and voluntarily waive[d] his right" to "[a]ppeal or collaterally challenge his guilty plea." Despite this waiver, Defendant filed a notice of appeal, seeking to assert a claim that the district court erred in enhancing his sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA). On appeal to the Tenth Circuit, Defendant argued that it would be a miscarriage of justice to enforce the appeal waiver because "of the need to know whether the district court correctly applied the ACCA in calculating the correct sentence." The Tenth Circuit found however that "defendant's miscarriage-of-justice argument is simply a claim of sentencing error, and this court has repeatedly held that alleged sentencing errors do not establish that enforcement of the appeal waiver would be unlawful under the miscarriage-of-justice inquiry." The Court granted the government's motion and dismissed this appeal.

Petitioner Antonius Heijnen filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. 1651 for either a writ of coram nobis or a writ of audita querela, seeking reversal and expungement of his federal-court convictions on several charges. In 2005, a jury found Petitioner guilty of conspiracy, wire fraud, and money laundering charges. Petitioner unsuccessfully appealed the convictions, but the Tenth Circuit affirmed. Petitioner then filed a petition for a writ of error coram nobis. The court entered an order providing Petitioner the opportunity to withdraw his petition rather than having it recharacterized as a motion under 28 U.S.C. 2255. Petitioner did not withdraw it; the court recharacterized it as a 2255 motion and dismissed it as untimely. Petitioner appealed that dismissal but then voluntarily dismissed his appeal. He then petitioned the district court for either a writ of error coram nobis or a writ of audita querela, which the court denied. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit concluded Petitioner raised no argument why section 2255 did not provide an adequate or effective remedy. As such, the Court did not reach whether Petitioner's petition failed on the merits for lack of jurisdiction, "because the petition was properly dismissed in either event."

Pro se prisoner Petitioner Tyrone Farris sought a certificate of appealability (COA) to challenge the district court's dismissal of his unauthorized second or successive motion for post-conviction relief. The district court denied the motion for lack of jurisdiction. In 1986, Petitioner was convicted of first degree rape in state court in Oklahoma. In 1988, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed his conviction. Petitioner also sought state post-conviction relief and that request was denied. Petitioner filed his first petition (also known as a 2254 petition) in 1991. In August 2011, Petitioner filed another 2254 petition. Because Petitioner failed to first obtain circuit-court authorization to file his second petition, the district court dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit found that "[r]easonable jurists could not debate that the district court was correct in its procedural ruling to dismiss [Petitioner's] unauthorized second" petition. Accordingly, the Tenth Circuit denied Petitioner's request for a COA and dismissed his appeal.

In 1995, Petitioner-Appellant Nathan Dunlap was convicted of two counts of second-degree kidnapping, aggravated robbery, and theft relating to a 1993 armed robbery at a Burger King restaurant. For this, he was sentenced to 75 years' imprisonment. This conviction was later used as a statutory aggravator in the penalty phase of Petitioner's trial involving the murders of four people at a Chuck E. Cheese restaurant. Petitioner applied for but was denied habeas relief in connection with the Burger King robbery. On appeal, Petitioner argued that the state court erred in: (1) rejecting his motion for a change of venue because the pretrial publicity about the Chuck E. Cheese case presumptively or actually prejudiced his ability to obtain a fair trial; and (2) rejecting his claim that the prosecution's closing argument constituted improper vouching which rendered his trial fundamentally unfair. After careful consideration of the parties' arguments, the trial court record and the applicable legal authority, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of habeas relief, finding that the trial court "correctly focused on the empaneled jury and the careful procedures employed by the trial judge to ensure an impartial jury" and that the court instructed the jury not to consider arguments made by counsel as evidence.

A jury convicted Defendant Christopher Bass on being a felon in possession of a firearm. He was sentenced to 94 months in prison and three years of supervised release. On appeal to the Tenth Circuit, he contended: (1) that the search that discovered the firearm was unlawful because (a) the government failed to show that his girlfriend’s consent to search his trailer was voluntary and (b) his girlfriend lacked authority to consent to the search of a zipper bag in the trailer; (2) that his sentence violated the Sixth Amendment because he received Sentencing Guidelines offense-level enhancements for alleged misconduct that he was acquitted of by the jury; and (3) that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the conviction. Upon review of the trial court record and the applicable legal authority, the Tenth Circuit concluded the search was conducted lawfully and voluntarily consented to, and that the evidence was sufficient to support Defendant's conviction and the sentence he received. The Court affirmed the district court's judgment.

Pro se prisoner Plaintiff-Appellant Calvin Barnett filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. 1983 charging certain corporate owners and employees of the Davis Correctional Facility (DCF), a private prison in Holdenville, Oklahoma, of violating his constitutional rights. Plaintiff alleged that the prison knew of danger to two inmates, Defendant and his cell mate, "apparently as a result of conflict and likely violence between them." Plaintiff contended he told Defendants that he feared for his life, but they did nothing to protect the two from one another. This failure lead to the cell mate's death; Plaintiff was transferred from DCF and charged with first degree murder. In response to Defendants' motion to dismiss, the district court dismissed Plaintiff's complaint as time barred under the applicable statute of limitations. Plaintiff appealed. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit found that the district court was correct in dismissing the case: "[w]hen a complaint shows on its face that the applicable statute of limitations has expired, dismissal for failure to state a claim is appropriate." The Court affirmed the district court's judgment.

Defendant Miguel Hernandez-Valdez appealed his sentence of thirty-three months' imprisonment for having been convicted of being an alien in possession of a firearm. On appeal to the Tenth Circuit, Defendant argued that the district court erred in applying a four-level sentencing enhancement under the United States Sentencing Guidelines for his possession of the firearm in connection with another felony offense. Although the Court concluded the district court failed to engage in fact finding as required by the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Defendant did not show that the court committed plain error. Accordingly, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's calculation of Defendant's sentence.