Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

On the morning his trial was set to commence, Defendant Mario Ochoa-Olivas pled guilty to one count of illegal reentry to the United States. Using the Sentencing Guidelines, the district court calculated an advisory range of ninety-two to one hundred fifteen months' imprisonment. The court ultimately settled on an eighty-month term. Defendant appealed the sentence, arguing that the district court "double counted" points given to his criminal history, thus leading to an unreasonable sentence. In this case, the Tenth Circuit held that "[w]e are bound by precedent and cannot say that the district court abused its discretion" when it reviewed Defendant's sentence in light of the Sentencing Guidelines and his criminal history. The Court affirmed the district court's calculation of Defendant's sentence.

Plaintiff-Appellant Michael Whittington filed a civil rights lawsuit, alleging that prison officials violated his Eighth Amendment rights by forcing him to choose between spending funds in his inmate bank account on court costs, or on dental hygiene items. Specifically, Plaintiff claims that he was unable to pay for basic hygiene supplies because all of his inmate salary and the funds in his account were levied for mandatory deductions imposed by the Department of Corrections, or for the necessary costs of protected litigation. Refusing to give him the hygiene supplies for free, Plaintiff argued, was "cruel and unusual punishment." Ultimately the district court dismissed all Plaintiffs' claims based on various grounds. Plaintiff only challenged the dismissals based on "qualified immunity." The Tenth Circuit found that the deprivation of hygiene items for extended periods can implicate the Eighth Amendment, but the law was not established on this point at the time Plaintiff brought his complaint. The Court noted that the facts of Plaintiff's complaint do not allege that the Department of Corrections denied him the items per se. Rather, Plaintiff's complaint alleged that the Department forced him to choose between two constitutionally protected activities. The Court held that the district court properly granted qualified immunity on Plaintiff's claims against the Department of Corrections. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the lower court's decision to dismiss Plaintiff's claims.

Defendant George White unsuccessfully applied for a writ of habeas corpus at the district court. In April 2010, Defendant filed an application in state court for post conviction relief, which the trial and appellate courts denied. In October 2010, Defendant filed his application for the writ with the federal district court, arguing that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. The district court dismissed his application as untimely. Defendant sought a certificate of appealability (COA) from the Tenth Circuit. Upon review, the Court found that Defendant's application was indeed, untimely. The Court denied Defendant's request for a COA and dismissed Defendant's appeal.

Defendant-Appellant Keith Mutte challenged his conviction for "assault resulting in bodily injury." The charge stemmed from a domestic dispute between Defendant and his then-girlfriend. While Defendant and the girlfriend were watching television and doing laundry, the girlfriend testified that Defendant hit and kicked her repeatedly, eventually breaking her ankle. Defendant argued that other evidence presented at trial did not corroborate his girlfriend's testimony. The district court ruled that the girlfriend's testimony alone was sufficient to support the jury's finding beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant assaulted her. On appeal to the Tenth Circuit, Defendant asserted that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction. Upon consideration of the arguments and the applicable legal authority, the Court affirmed the Defendant's conviction on assault charges.

Defendant-Appellant Vauda Shipp, Jr. was convicted of possessing a firearm after a felony conviction. At sentencing, he was classified as an "armed career criminal" based on three predicate convictions for violent felonies dating from 1984 to 1987. Defendant unsuccessfully appealed his conviction. During that appeal, the United States Supreme Court decided "Chambers v. United States." The Tenth Circuit was then presented with a question on whether the "Chambers" decision would apply retroactively to Defendant's sentence. The Tenth Circuit remanded Defendant's appeal back to the district court to make that determination. The district court found, consistent with the Tenth Circuit's mandate, that the "Chambers" decision applied retroactively. The district court resentenced Defendant. On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court misinterpreted the applicable rules and holding of "Chambers" when it resentenced him. Upon careful consideration of the arguments and the applicable legal authority, the Tenth Circuit concluded that the district court did not err in its interpretation and application of "Chambers." Accordingly, the Court affirmed the district court's judgment.

Petitioner Kirk Byrd appealed the district court's denial of his habeas petition. Petitioner alleged that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his trial counsel failed to investigate whether his prior felony convictions would be admissible to enhance his sentence under the state repeat-offender statute. Under Oklahoma law, a criminal defendant facing a sentence enhancement is entitled to a bifurcated trial. In a bifurcated trial, a defendant's prior convictions are not admissible. Faced with the apparent choice of a single-stage trial where he would admit all his prior convictions himself, or a bifurcated trial, Petitioner chose to be up-front about his criminal past, and admitted to each of his previous felony convictions. Upon review by the Tenth Circuit, the Court noted that Petitioner made the strategic decision to admit his prior convictions in a single-stage proceeding. The Court reasoned that it followed the trial court would use those admissions in making its sentencing decision. The Court found no prejudice to Petitioner by his counsel's actions. Accordingly, the Court affirmed Petitioner's conviction and sentence.

Defendant-Appellant Steven Fishman was found guilty of conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud and to commit money laundering. He was sentenced to 26 months' imprisonment, three years of supervised release, and ordered to pay $3.7 million in restitution. Defendant filed a host of pre-trial motions, all of which were denied. The denial of these motions served as the basis of his appeal to the Tenth Circuit. In particular, Defendant argued that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support his conviction and sentence. The Tenth Circuit reviewed the lower court's record, and found the evidence presented was sufficient to support Defendant's conviction and sentence. The Court affirmed Defendant's conviction and sentence.

Defendant Paul Allen requested a certificate of appealability to appeal the district court's denial of his application for post-conviction relief. Defendant was accused of the aggravated murder of his wife. He was also charged with conspiracy and solicitation. The jury in his case was instructed that if it found Defendant guilty of aggravated murder, it should not render a verdict on the other two charges. The jury found Defendant guilty of aggravated murder. The Utah Supreme Court denied Defendant's applications for post conviction relief. Defendant filed a third application to the federal district court, alleging nine errors at the trial court entitled him to relief. The Tenth Circuit reviewed all nine "errors" and found all of them meritless. The Court denied Defendant's application for a certificate of appealability and dismissed Defendant's appeal.

Defendant James Thornbrugh appealed the district court's denial of his petition for writs of coram nobis and audita querela. Defendant had unsuccessfully filed successive habeas petitions to challenge his sentence. Defendant petitioned the Tenth Circuit to challenge the validity of his sentence under the All Writs Act, 28 USC 1651. The Court found that Defendant's motion seeking the writs lacked merit, and that Defendant was not entitled to relief under the Act: "[e]ven if we construe [Defendant's] appellate materials as an implied application for permission to file a successive [habeas corpus] motion, he has not presented any new facts or rules of constitutional law" as required by the Act. The Court denied authorization for Defendant to proceed, effectively dismissing his application for relief.

Defendant Christine Thompson pled guilty to conspiracy and securities fraud. The district court sentenced her to 57 months' imprisonment, three years of supervised release, and ordered her to pay $1.39 million in restitution. On appeal, Defendant argued that the length of her prison sentence was substantially unreasonable. A 64-count indictment charged Defendant and two of her former husbands for their involvement in multiple bogus oil-and-gas drilling projects. Over the course of two years, Defendant defrauded over thirty investors. Defendant argued that her criminal history "over-represented" the seriousness of her prior offenses. Furthermore, Defendant suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder, and the after-effects of emotional and physical abuse from family and one of her former husbands. On appeal to the Tenth Circuit, Defendant argued that the district court did not take these mitigating factors into consideration when it sentenced her to prison. The Tenth Circuit found that Defendant could not overcome the "presumption of reasonableness" by demonstrating that her criminal history and mental and emotional conditions entitled her to a lesser sentence. Accordingly, the Court affirmed Defendant's conviction and sentence.