Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Utah County Deputy Sheriff Scott Jensen appealed a district court's ruling that he was not entitled to qualified immunity on claims brought against him by Appellee William Rieck that alleged illegal entry, illegal detention and use of excessive force. The claims arose out of an incident on Mr. Rieck's 17-acre property in an unincorporated part of Utah County. The district court ruled that the deputy was not entitled to immunity because he entered a closed gate on Mr. Rieck's property without a warrant. On appeal, Mr. Rieck did not argue any alternative grounds for denying Deputy Jensen qualified immunity. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit reversed the district court's holding, and remanded the case for entry of summary judgment on those claims. The Court found that the area of Mr. Rieck's property that the deputy entered was not within the curtilage of Mr. Rieck's home, therefore, the deputy could enter the property without a violation of Mr. Rieck's constitutional rights.

Defendant Leobardo Moralez-Ramirez challenged the district court's dismissal of his applications for post-conviction relief. He was convicted after a jury trial for conspiring to distribute heroin and sentenced to 240 months' imprisonment. His initial appeals were dismissed as untimely. More than two years after the Tenth Circuit affirmed his convictions, Defendant filed his application for a certificate of appealability (COA), arguing that the one-year limitation period in 28 U.S.C. 2255 should be equitably tolled under the "actual innocence exception," and that multiple constitutional errors in his pre-sentence investigation report warranted further judicial review. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit found that Defendant did not establish his entitlement to a COA. The Court denied Defendant's COA and dismissed his remaining appeals.

Defendant Louis Warren challenged the district court's dismissal of his application for a certificate of appealability (COA). The court found that Defendant's application was barred by the one-year limitations period of 28 U.S.C. 2244. Defendant pled guilty to racketeering in Colorado state court and was sentenced to 29 years' imprisonment. Defendant did not appeal his conviction or sentence. In 2008, approximately 20 months after the final denial of his previous motions, Defendant unsuccessfully moved the state court to correct his sentence. The district court dismissed his appeal as untimely. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit found that Defendant did not establish his entitlement to a COA. The Court denied Defendant's COA, and dismissed his remaining appeals.

Defendant-Appellant Alex Maestas appealed the district court's calculation of his sentence for attempting to steal a piece of gold from Los Alamos National Laboratory. The gold was a piece of solder used to repair a device used to melt materials containing plutonium. The gold itself was contaminated with plutonium. The sentencing court used an enhancement for "the conscious or reckless risk of death or serious bodily injury." Defendant argued that the enhancement could only apply if the government proved that he was aware of the risk in taking the contaminated gold would create, and that he consciously or recklessly disregarded that risk. Upon review of the trial court record, the Tenth Circuit found that the district court could have reasonably inferred that the gold Defendant removed from the lab was radioactive. The Court affirmed Defendant's sentence, finding the evidence against him sufficient to support the lower court's enhancement.

Petitioner Alfonso Jiminez-Guzman sought review of a removal order issued by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). On appeal, he argued that the agency erred in denying his request for a continuance and by applying an incorrect legal standard to the evidence of his controlled-substance conviction. Petitioner was a lawful permanent resident to the United States. In 2009, the Department of Homeland Security issued a notice-to-appear to Petitioner, charging that he was subject for removal due to a 2002 Colorado conviction for heroin possession. The Immigration Judge granted Petitioner two continuances so that he could obtain counsel. Once he obtained counsel, Petitioner unsuccessfully petitioned to cancel his removal. Upon review of Defendant's conviction record and the BIA's proceedings, the Tenth Circuit found "clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence" to support Defendant's removal. The Court found BIA committed no error in dismissing Petitioner's appeal.

Over the course of six days in August 2004, Defendant Samuel Rushin and an accomplice robbed six convenience stores in Wichita at gunpoint. A year later, a jury convicted Defendant on multiple robbery and firearms charges. Defendant was sentenced to 139 years' imprisonment. On second-appeal to the Tenth Circuit, Defendant claimed he was entitled to post-conviction relief because he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to counsel when his trial attorney failed to seek dismissal of his indictment on violation of "speedy trial." The standard measure of prejudice in the context of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim is the effect of the attorney's deficient performance on the result or outcome. The Tenth Circuit found that Defendant "in no sense has proven the substantial likelihood of a result different from that he now faces." Therefore, the Court affirmed the district court's dismissal of his petition for relief.

Defendant Michael Jordan appealed his sentence of 210 months' imprisonment on drug charges. He raised three issues for the Tenth Circuit's review. All issues pertained to alleged errors at the trial court: the calculation of his sentence, the alleged insufficient evidence presented against him, and the effectiveness of his trial counsel. Upon careful consideration of the issues Defendant raised in his appeal and the applicable legal authority, the Tenth Circuit found no merit to his arguments. The Court affirmed the lower court's decision and upheld Defendant's sentence.

Defendant Herman Ransom appealed a district court's denial of his motion for acquittal or for a new trial after he was convicted on wire fraud and theft of public money. Defendant was accused of falsifying his time sheets from work at the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). When Defendant took full-day leaves, he listed "8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m." as his working hours. Though an assistant prepared the time sheets, he signed them and a supervisor approved them. The records were then forwarded via wire to a central processing unit. HUD received an anonymous complaint about Defendant's frequent absences from the office, and an internal investigation would reveal the discrepancy in his time sheets. On appeal to the Tenth Circuit, Defendant challenged the validity of the evidence presented against him at trial. Upon review of the record and the applicable legal standard, the Tenth Circuit found sufficient evidence to support Defendant's conviction on wire fraud and theft charges. The Court affirmed the lower court's decision and Defendant's conviction.

Defendant-Appellant Rigoberto Martinez-Haro was indicted with two counts of methamphetamine possession with intent to distribute. Before trial, Defendant's counsel requested he undergo a psychiatric evaluation to determine his competency to stand trial. A doctor performed the evaluation and concluded that Defendant was "likely not competent." The doctor recommended more testing in Spanish by a Spanish speaking doctor. The government moved for a second competency hearing based on the doctor's recommendation which the district court granted. Defendant objected and filed an interlocutory appeal with the Tenth Circuit to challenge the district court's order. The Tenth Circuit found legitimate reasons for the district court to order a second competency examination. The Court concluded after a review of the doctor's report that it would have been "prudent" for the court to order the additional examination. Finding no abuse of discretion by the district court, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the lower court's decision.

Pro se Appellant Janos Toevs appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment to Defendants in his 42 U.S.C. 1983 civil-rights suit. Appellant's lawsuit pertained to the Colorado prison system's "Quality of Life Level Program" (QLLP). The QLLP program was described as a "stratified quality of life program based on increased levels of privileges for demonstrated appropriate offender behavior." Level 1 is the most restrictive, and each successive level offers an inmate more privileges. Appellant was placed in the QLLP in 2002 after attempting to escape. By September 2005, he had reached the least restrictive Level 6, but due to poor health was regressed back to Level 1. By 2009, Appellant had achieved Level 6 again and rejoined the general prison population. Appellant complained that during his placement in the QLLP from 2005 to 2009, his case managers' periodic reviews were "perfunctory, meaningless, and all said the same thing." He sued his case workers and the warden in their individual capacities. In affirming the district court's dismissal of Appellant's case, the Tenth Circuit found that the standards for meaningful periodic review for inmates in the QLLP were not previously clearly established in the Circuit. As such, the Court found that Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity from Appellant's suit.