Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant Curtis Cordery appealed his sentence, arguing that it was error for the district court to increase his term of imprisonment to enable him to qualify for a prison drug treatment program. Defendant pled guilty to one count of armed bank robbery. At sentencing, Defendantâs trial counsel sought a sentence below the guidelines range based on Defendantâs need for substance abuse and mental health treatment, noting "the court is specifically charged to consider the need for treatment in imposing sentencing." After considering arguments from both parties, the district court imposed a sentence of 56 months. In response to objections from Defendantâs counsel that a lesser sentence would make Defendant eligible for the treatment program, the court stated its belief that a prisoner serving a term of less than 30 months is not eligible to participate. The Tenth Circuit issued an opinion in a different case concluding that a district court cannot rely on rehabilitative goals in imposing a term of incarceration. The Supreme Court reached the same conclusion in Tapia v. United States. Based on these decisions, the Tenth Circuit found Defendantâs sentence was plain error, and remanded his case for resentencing.

Defendant Chang Hong sought a certificate of appealability from the Tenth Circuit to appeal the district courtâs denial of his motion for post-conviction relief as untimely. He asserted claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, alleging his counsel failed to advise him of the immigration consequences of his guilty plea as required by "Padilla v. Kentucky." Defendant argued "Padilla" is a new rule of constitutional law that applies retroactively to cases on collateral review, making his motion timely. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit found that "Padilla" is a new rule of constitutional law, but it does not apply retroactively to cases on collateral review. Therefore, Defendantâs motion was untimely, and the Court concluded Defendant did not make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Accordingly, the Court denied Defendantâs request for a COA and dismissed his appeal.

Defendant Marcus Coleman was convicted of selling crack cocaine and marijuana on three separate occasions in 2002, in violation of Oklahomaâs Trafficking in Illegal Drugs Act. Because he was between the ages of 16 and 17 when he committed these crimes, the state court adjudicated him under Oklahomaâs Youthful Offender Act. Coleman received a sentence of 10 yearsâ confinement for each conviction, the maximum sentence permitted. Coleman escaped from OJA custody in 2003. After he was rearrested in 2004, a state judge converted the prior YOA sentences to adult convictions and committed him to the custody of the Oklahoma Department of Corrections to serve the remainder of his sentences. Coleman was paroled in 2007. In 2009, Coleman pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition in violation of federal law. Colemanâs presentence report determined his drug-trafficking convictions qualified as âserious drug offensesâ under the ACCA and recommended the application of the armed career offender guideline. The issue on appeal to the Tenth Circuit concerned whether drug-trafficking convictions that are initially adjudicated under Oklahomaâs Youthful Offender Act qualify as âserious drug offensesâ under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA). The Tenth Circuit concluded they do, and affirmed Defendant's sentence.

Pro se prisoner Petitioner Frederick Solarin sought a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal a district courtâs dismissal of his motion for post-conviction relief. Petitioner was convicted of bank robbery and firearms charges, and sentenced to 244 months of imprisonment. He unsuccessfully raised three claims on appeal: (1) when he was suspected of the robbery and taken into state custody for an alleged parole violation, his custody really was an unconstitutional federal arrest without a warrant or probable cause; (2) he gave an involuntary confession because his arrest was illegal and agents were coercive in interrogating him; and (3) his counsel was ineffective. The district court denied the first claim for procedural default, concluding that he had not shown cause for failing to raise the claim on direct appeal. For the same reason, it also applied procedural default to the aspect of the second claim alleging that his confession was involuntary because his arrest was illegal. It denied the remainder of the second claim and the third claim on the merits. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit concluded "No reasonable jurist could debate whether the issues presented in Mr. Solarinâs motions were âadequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.â" The Court denied Petitionerâs application for a COA.

Pro se prisoner Petitioner James Fulton sought to appeal a district court's denial of his motion for post-conviction relief. Petitioner was serving a 120-month sentence following his conviction on cocaine possession and distribution charges. His primary argument on direct appeal was that the government entrapped him with respect to the drug transactions underlying the indictment. In his 2255 motion, Petitioner maintained his counsel was ineffective (1) in failing to object to a lack of compliance with 21 U.S.C. 851 at sentencing and (2) in not raising or arguing entrapment with respect to the sentence imposed. In a thorough memorandum opinion and order, the district court rejected both arguments. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit found "reasonable jurists could not debate the district court's determination" in Petitioner's case. The Court affirmed the lower court's denial of Petitioner's motion and dismissed his complaint.

Defendant Juan Jose Montoya-Ruiz appeals his 46-month sentence for unlawful reentry of an alien who had previously been deported after commission of an aggravated felony. On appeal, Defendant challenged the substantive reasonableness of his sentence. Defendant, a native and citizen of Mexico, was sentenced in California on November 14, 1994, for possession of a controlled substance for sale (an aggravated felony) and was thereafter deported. On April 2, 2010, he was found within the State of Colorado and indicted for illegally reentering the United States. His presentence investigation report calculated that under the United States Sentencing Guidelines, the advisory range for his sentence was 46-57 months. The probation office recommended a 50-month sentence. Before the sentencing hearing, Defendant moved for a downward variance. The district court imposed a sentence of 46 months' incarceration. Finding no abuse of discretion by the district court, the Tenth Circuit affirmed Defendant's sentence.

Defendant Doroteo Rendon-Martinez was convicted of possession of a firearm and ammunition by a felon and of illegal reentry by an alien after being deported. He appealed his convictions and 180-month concurrent sentences to the Tenth Circuit. Defendant, a native and citizen of Mexico, was removed from the United States in December 2009. By February 9, 2010, however, he had returned and was living in a house in Oklahoma City. On that day, he thought three men were trying to break into the house. Knowing that a .38 Special revolver and ammunition were on the premises, he grabbed the gun and fired warning shots into the yard. Someone called the police, and when officers arrived they saw Defendant holding the revolver. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit found "there was no error, much less plain error" in the district court's decision in Defendant's case. Accordingly, the Court affirmed Defendant's conviction and sentence.

Defendant Carolyn Bell unsuccessfully sought post-conviction relief from the district court and petitioned the Tenth Circuit for a certificate of appealability. Defendant was indicted for possessing crack cocaine with the intent to distribute. After reaching an agreement with the government, she pled guilty. Upon review of Defendantâs petition, the Tenth Circuit found that Defendant waived her right to pursue a collateral attack on her conviction or sentence when she entered her guilty plea. The Court dismissed Defendantâs COA and her appeal.

Petitioner Richard Rojem appealed a district courtâs denial of his Ex Parte Motion for De Novo Review of Preliminary Budget and his Ex Parte Motion for Approval of Funding for Expert Assistance which he filed in his pending federal habeas proceedings. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit found that at its core, Petitionerâs appeal challenged the district courtâs decision regarding how much compensation to award counsel. The Court dismissed Petitionerâs appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Defendant Brice Hernandez was originally convicted of possessing an unregistered firearm seven years ago, for which he served time and won supervised release. Subsequently, he violated the conditions imposed on his release four more times and was reincarcerated each time. In his appeal to the Tenth Circuit, Defendant sought to âundoâ his last prison sentence in part because the last sentence did not include supervised release, and partly based on his contention that the district courtâs application of 18 U.S.C. 3583(e)(3) meant defendants like him would be trapped in an endless cycle of imprisonment and release. â[A]s endless as [Defendantâs] cycle of revocation and release may have once seemed, it, like all things, must and does come to an end.â The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district courtâs decision and Defendantâs latest sentence.