Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant appealed from the denial of his motion to set aside his convictions and sentences for two counts of possession with intent to distribute cocaine base under 28 U.S.C. 2255. At issue was whether the verdict forms in connection with counts twenty-one and twenty-two constructively amended the indictment in violation of defendant's Fifth Amendment rights, including whether defendant procedurally defaulted this issue. Because of the court's previous panel's rejection of defendant's constructive amendment claim did not work a manifest injustice, the court respected that decision as the law of the case. Accordingly, defendant's motion was properly denied.

Petitioner appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. 2254 habeas corpus petition because it was time-barred. The court found that petitioner's conviction initially became final on July 11, 2006, 90 days after the California Supreme Court denied his petition for review on direct appeal; petitioner then filed a motion in the California Court of Appeal to recall the remittitur and reinstate his appeal based on Cunningham v. California but the motion was denied on May 23, 2007; the California Supreme Court subsequently granted review of the petition and deferred further action; and by granting review, the California Supreme Court reopened direct review and made petitioner's conviction "again capable of modification through direct appeal." Petitioner's conviction became final on December 11, 2007 and the federal habeas petition was filed on June 30, 2008. Accordingly, the petition was timely filed and the court reversed and remanded.

This case began as a dispute over the results of CM's special education evaluation under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq. At issue on appeal was: (1) the ALJ's dismissal of several of CM's claims against Lafayette prior to holding a due process hearing; and (2) the district court's dismissal of MM's, CM's parents, separate claims against the California Department of Education (CDE). The court held that the district court correctly dismissed MM's claims against Lafayette challenging the ALJ's statute of limitations ruling as being premature. The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the fourth claim as duplicative and correctly held that the CDE had no authority to oversee the individual decisions of OAH's hearing officers. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.

Plaintiffs brought a First Amendment and other constitutional challenges to regulations and associated guidelines that required permits for "commercial weddings" on public beaches in Hawaii. The court held that Hawaii's regulation of commercial weddings on unencumbered state beaches did not violate the First Amendment, except for a provision giving an official absolute discretion to revoke a permit at anytime and to modify it as the official deemed necessary or appropriate.

Petitioner was convicted of second degree murder with aggravating enhancements. This case presented three certified issues which the court reviewed under the Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), 28 U.S.C. 2254(d): (1) whether petitioner's federal due process rights were violated when the trial court construed California law to allow jurors to refuse to discuss their deliberations and alleged misconduct after trial; (2) whether jury misconduct involving unsolicited observations of some jurors deprived petitioner of his right to an impartial jury; and (3) whether petitioner received ineffective assistance of counsel due to counsel's elicitation of unfavorable expert testimony on cross-examination. The court held that the California Court of Appeal's decision was not an unreasonable application of petitioner's Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights under AEDPA's stringent standard and the court affirmed the decision of the district court denying the petition for habeas corpus relief.

Defendant appealed the sentence imposed by the district court following his conviction for illegal reentry after deportation. Defendant challenged the district court's determination that his prior Arizona state court conviction for attempted aggravated assault was a crime of violence, and the resulting sixteen-level sentencing enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii). The court affirmed the sentence because defendant's conviction for attempted aggravated assault rested on the elements of generic attempted aggravated assault.

Defendant was indicted for harboring aliens and moved to suppress evidence of the aliens as the fruit of a warrantless search and seizure. Though the district court found that the border patrol agents entered the curtilage of defendant's home and that there were no exigent circumstances that might justify the failure to obtain a warrant, that court denied the motion. Defendant entered a conditional guilty plea and appealed. Because the agents physically occupied the curtilage of defendant's home without obtaining a warrant, and no exceptions to the warrant requirement otherwise justified the search or seizure, the court reversed defendant's conviction and remanded.

The Government appealed the sentence imposed on defendant for illegal reentry following deportation. The district court declined to apply a 16-level enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. 2L1.2, for defendant's prior conviction under California Health & Safety Code 11351. The court held that a conviction under Section 11351 did not qualify categorically as a "drug trafficking offense" for the purposes of U.S.S.G. 2L1.2. However, the court held that defendant's prior Section 11351 conviction qualified as a "drug trafficking offense" using the modified categorical approach. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for resentencing.

Petitioner was sentenced to death following convictions for first-degree murder and other crimes. While seeking federal habeas relief, petitioner requested a stay of the proceedings on the grounds that he was not competent at the time to assist counsel. Following an evidentiary hearing on petitioner's competency, the district court denied the requested stay based on its determination that petitioner was competent to proceed. Petitioner sought an immediate appeal of the competency determination, or in the alternative, mandamus relief. The court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to review the competency determination at this time because it was not an immediately appealable order. The court also concluded that mandamus relief was not appropriate. Accordingly, the court dismissed the appeal and denied the petition for writ of mandamus.

Petitioner was convicted in a California court of one count of forcible rape and one count of assault with intent to commit rape. Petitioner appealed from the district court's denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner first contended that the trial court permitted a forensic analyst to testify based on the results of scientific tests performed and reports prepared by other analysts in violation of his Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause right. The court held that this claim failed because there was no clearly established federal law, based on decisions of the Supreme Court, that held that such testimony violated the Confrontation Clause in circumstances where the testifying witness participated in and reviewed the crime lab's work, even though she did not personally conduct all the testing herself. The court also concluded that petitioner's trial counsel's failure to object based on the Confrontation Clause to the analyst's testimony did not represent deficient performance and did not prejudice petitioner. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.