Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries
Articles Posted in U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals
United States v. Ehle
Defendant entered a guilty plea to knowingly receiving child pornography and knowingly possessing the same child pornography (18 U.S.C. 2252A) and was sentenced to consecutive terms of 120 and 240 months imprisonment. The Sixth Circuit vacated and remanded, first holding that a double jeopardy claim was not waived by the plea agreement. The offense of knowingly receiving child pornography includes all of the elements of the lesser-included offense of possessing the same child pornography and Congress did not explicitly require multiple punishments. Simply ordering that the sentences run concurrently would be an insufficient remedy.
Vanwinkle v. United States
Petitioner-Appellant Arthur Vanwinkle pled guilty to federal theft and conspiracy charges in exchange for the government dismissal of more serious offenses. The district court sentenced Petitioner to over 120 months' imprisonment. Instead of appealing his plea or sentence, Petitioner filed a motion to vacate his sentence, challenging the plea and sentence on constitutional grounds. A federal magistrate denied his motion, holding that Petitioner had no bases to challenge his plea or sentence. The district court adopted the magistrate's findings in their entirety, but noted that "reasonable jurists could disagree" with how the court handled Petitioner's legal sufficiency claim. The court granted Petitioner a Certificate of Appealability on that one claim, and the Sixth Circuit granted this review. The Court found that Petitioner's plea "serve[d] as an admission that he is not innocent of the crimes charged." The Court reasoned that because Petitioner's argument that the same evidence he failed to object to at trial was now legally insufficient he could not challenge his sentence and plea now. The Court affirmed the district court's denial of Petitioner's motion.
United States v. Williams
While serving a sentence for planting a pipe-bomb that killed his stepfather, the defendant mailed a letter containing a substance purported to be anthrax to the judge who denied his habeas corpus petition. After representing himself at trial, he was convicted of mailing a threatening communication to a federal judge (18 U.S.C. 876). The district court did not obtain a presentence report and conducted the sentencing hearing by video conference because of concerns that the defendant would be difficult to control. The defendant and his appointed counsel did not object. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the conviction, stating that the letter amounted to a threat even though the danger from anthrax is immediate, not in the future, but vacated the sentence. Although the video conference worked well, it is not a substitute for physical presence; the government did not establish that the error was harmless. The district court also erred in relying on the defendantâs waiver of a presentence report, absent a finding that a report was not necessary. The record indicated that the defendant knowingly waived the right to counsel at trial and the court was not required to provide him with funds to purchase non-prison clothing for trial.
United States v. Lucas
The defendant entered a conditional guilty plea to charges under 18 U.S.C. 2252 of possessing and receiving child pornography, then appealed denial of a motion to suppress photographs and videos that were discovered on his laptop computer during a consent search of his residence for controlled substances, drug paraphernalia, and other material or records pertaining to narcotics. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. The âknock and talkâ procedure is a legitimate investigative technique for obtaining a suspectâs consent to a search and the defendant did voluntarily consent. The officer told the college-educated defendant that he could refuse consent or stop the search and the defendant knew that the police had enough evidence to get a warrant. The search of the computer and external drive were within the scope of the consent; the defendant did not object or withdraw consent during the search. The computer was searched after marijuana was found and for the purpose of finding information about the defendantâs marijuana growing operation.
Am. Express Travel Related Servs., Inc. v. Commonwealth of KY
The district court declared an amendment to Kentucky Revised Statutes Sect. 393.060 unconstitutional. The amendment shortens the period for presumption of abandonment on travelerâs checks from 15 to seven years, accelerating the date at which the issuer must remit outstanding funds to the state. The company claims that the amendment limits its ability to earn interest by investing unclaimed funds. The Sixth Circuit vacated and remanded, applying the "rational basis" test. Although the legislative history did not reflect it, the court the court considered the state's "rational claim" that the amendment was intended to facilitate its legitimate interest in assuming control of abandoned property. The court declined to invalidate the amendment simply because it may be unwise to deviate from the 15-year presumptive abandonment period of the Uniform Unclaimed Property Act, followed by 48 states. The court remanded for consideration of other constitutional claims.