Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant Timothy Wells appealed his conviction after a jury trial of sexual exploitation of a child, for which he received the mandatory minimum sentence of 180 months’ imprisonment. The only issue he raised by Wells was whether the jury had sufficient evidence to convict him of sexual exploitation of a child. Finding that it did, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "United States v. Wells" on Justia Law

Defendant Tommy Taylor was convicted by a jury of being a felon in possession of a firearm, for which he was sentenced to 110 months’ imprisonment. On direct appeal, the Tenth Circuit remanded for resentencing because Taylor’s sentence was based in part on the application of the residual clause of U.S.S.G. 4B1.2(a)(2), which had been held to be unconstitutionally vague. On remand, the district court sentenced Taylor to a term of imprisonment of 87 months. Taylor again appealed, arguing that the district court incorrectly calculated his base and total offense levels by improperly treating a prior state conviction as a “crime of violence” pursuant to U.S.S.G. sections 4B1.2(a)(1) and 2K2.1(a)(4)(A). After review, the Tenth Circuit rejected Taylor’s arguments and affirmed his sentence. View "United States v. Taylor" on Justia Law

While incarcerated at the Topeka Correctional Facility (TCF - an all-female state prison), Plaintiff-Appellant Tracy Keith was raped by a prison maintenance employee. Plaintiff filed a section 1983 suit alleging that prison officials, including Warden Richard Koerner, violated her Eighth Amendment rights by creating an environment in which sexual misconduct was likely to occur. The Warden defended primarily on qualified immunity grounds. The district court granted summary judgment to Warden Koerner on qualified immunity. Plaintiff appealed. After review, the Tenth Circuit found that a reasonable jury could have concluded that Warden Koerner created an atmosphere where “policies were honored only in the breach, and, as a result, he failed to take reasonable measures to ensure inmates were safe from the risk of sexual misconduct by TCF employees.” Because plaintiff possessed “a clearly established constitutional right” and presented evidence of a constitutional violation by Warden Koerner, the Tenth Circuit concluded summary judgment was inappropriate on qualified-immunity grounds. The Court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Keith v. Koerner" on Justia Law

A New Mexico statute and a resolution adopted by the Otero County Board of County Commissioners purported to authorize the Board to mitigate fire danger in the Lincoln National Forest without first obtaining permission from the U.S. Forest Service. The United States obtained a judgment from the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico invalidating the statute and the resolution. The Board appealed. but finding no error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. "The Property Clause of the United States Constitution authorizes the federal government to promulgate regulations governing use of national forest lands; and under the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause and binding precedent, those regulations prevail over any contrary state or local law." View "United States v. Board of Commissioners of Otero County" on Justia Law

The Estate of Clayton Lockett, through its personal representative Gary Lockett, filed suit against the Governor of Oklahoma Mary Fallin; corrections officials, medical officials, EMTs and drug manufacturers, all in relation to the execution of Clayton Lockett. In 1999, Lockett kidnapped, assaulted, and killed nineteen-year-old Stephanie Neiman. Lockett shot Neiman with a shotgun and then had an accomplice bury her alive. In 2000, a jury found Lockett guilty of 19 felonies arising from the same incident, including the murder, rape, forcible sodomy, kidnapping, and assault and battery of Neiman. The jury recommended that the court impose the death penalty. Oklahoma used a common drug protocol previously administered in at least 93 Oklahoma executions: three drugs (1) sodium thiopental; (2) pancuronium bromide; and (3) potassium chloride. In 2010, facing difficulty obtaining sodium thiopental, Oklahoma officials amended the Field Memorandum to substitute in its place pentobarbital. In 2014, Oklahoma officials amended their “Field Memorandum” to allow several new alternate procedures for use in executions by lethal injection. As one of these new procedures, officials substituted midazolam as he first drug used in the protocol. Before Lockett’s execution, Oklahoma had not used midazolam during an execution. Warden Anita Trammell and Director of Corrections Robert Patton chose this new protocol. The Estate asserted several constitutional violations related to Lockett’s execution with respect to the new procedures, essentially arguing that changing of the drugs caused Lockett intense pain as additional drugs were entered into the mix. The State parties moved to dismiss the estate’s suit against them, asserting qualified immunity (among other defenses). The district court granted the motion, reasoning that the estate failed to show defendants violated any established law. Finding no error in this judgment, the Tenth Circuit agreed and affirmed. View "Estate of Clayton Lockett v. Fallin" on Justia Law

In 2009, Jeremy Gilmore was convicted of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine. Due to two prior drug felonies, he was sentenced to a mandatory life sentence. He moved to have his sentence reduced in accordance with a retroactive sentencing amendment, arguing his prison term was not “based on” a guidelines sentencing range, as required by 18 U.S.C. 3582 (c)(2). To be afforded a sentencing reduction under section 3582(c)(2), a defendant had to show that his term of imprisonment was “based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission.” Defendant argued that his 168 month sentence mirrored the low end of a guideline sentence corresponding to a total offense level of 32 and a criminal history category of IV, and was thus “based on” a guidelines sentencing range. The district court concluded it lacked jurisdiction to reduce his sentence because the sentence was based on the parties’ stipulation and not on a “sentencing range” that had been subsequently lowered by the Sentencing Commission. Defendant argued to the Tenth Circuit that the district court erred in concluding it lacked jurisdiction, and that the stipulation did not bind the district court in reaching his sentence. The Tenth Circuit agreed with the district court however, that Defendant’s sentence was not “based on” a guidelines sentencing range, and affirmed. View "United States v. Gilmore" on Justia Law

Defendant Elias Amado appealed two district court decisions denying his respective motions for reduction of sentence. Defendant, an illegal immigrant, was caught in 2013 with lots of guns, ammunition, drugs, money, and other incriminating evidence. As part of his plea agreement, Defendant “knowingly and voluntarily waive[d] his right to . . . move to modify under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) or some other ground, his sentence as imposed by the court[.]” Based on an offense level of 37 and a criminal history category of II, Defendant’s guideline range was 235 to 293 months’ imprisonment on the drug count. The district court sentenced Defendant to 240 months’ imprisonment on that count and a concurrent term of 120 months’ imprisonment (the maximum allowable) on the illegal reentry count. Consistent with the terms of his plea agreement, Defendant did not pursue a direct appeal. Subsequently, Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines took effect on November 1, 2014. Despite his plea waiver, Defendant filed a motion pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) for a reduction of sentence. Three months after filing his first appeal, Defendant moved to “hold briefing in abeyance.” According to Defendant, the Government had decided not to oppose any subsequent motion he might make for a sentence reduction pursuant to section 3582(c)(2) and Amendment 782. The Tenth Circuit tolled briefing. With his first appeal still pending, Defendant returned to district court and again moved for a reduction of sentence. And again the district court denied the motion. This time, however, the court explained in a written order not only why it denied Defendant’s second motion but also his first motion: Defendant’s first motion did not present a close question. Turning to the second motion, the court initially questioned its jurisdiction over the motion, relied on "an obscure federal rule" to exercise jurisdiction, considered the second motion as one for a sentence reduction, then denied it. After review, the Tenth Circuit found no error in the district court's ruling on the first motion. Defendant’s second motion fell "within the very definition of a motion to reconsider," and the Tenth Circuit found no abuse of discretion in denying it. View "United States v. Amado" on Justia Law

In this case, Plaintiffs Jane Felix and B.N. Coone challenged the City of Bloomfield’s allowing the installation of a Ten Commandments monument on the City Hall Lawn. Two threshold issues raised were: (1) whether plaintiffs had standing; and (2) whether the monument was government speech subject to the limitations of the Establishment Clause. The Tenth Circuit found that plaintiffs suffered a legally sufficient injury to bring their claim in federal court, and that the First Amendment applied here. To downplay the religious overtones, City officials added several secular monuments next to the Ten Commandments to "dampen the effect of endorsement." The Tenth Circuit found that despite adding additional monuments, the inclusion of the Ten Commandments still violated the Establishment Clause: "The City has never explicitly said this Monument was not for religious purposes, nor that it was exhibited only for its historical significance. [. . .] In fact, [the City] has taken no public, purposeful, and persuasive action to distance itself from the sponsor and his message other than two ineffective disclaimers - one small, the other vague. The only meaningful public action Bloomfield undertook was to add secular monuments around the Ten Commandments." The Court affirmed the district court's ruling that the City impermissibly endorsed religion with its display of the Commandments, and the act was insufficiently mitigated by its curative efforts. View "Felix v. City of Bloomfield" on Justia Law

Defendant-appellant Ashley Tidzump was convicted of assault and requested an 18-month prison term, admitting an addiction to opiates and a need for treatment. Tidzump would have ordinarily qualified for the prison’s drug treatment program only if she began treatment with at least two years remaining on her sentence. The district court lengthened her prison sentence to 31 months. Though the sentence dipped below the guideline range, the sentence was long enough to allow Tidzump to become eligible for the prison’s drug treatment program. Tidzump appealed the sentence, presenting the issue for the Tenth Circuit’s review of whether the district court’s explanation for the sentence was permissible under “Tapia v. United States,” (564 U.S. 319 (2011)). In “Tapia,” the U.S. Supreme Court held that a federal district court could not impose or lengthen a prison term to promote rehabilitation. After review, the Tenth Circuit concluded that the sentence was impermissible because the district court expressly lengthened the sentence for the purpose of promoting rehabilitation. View "United States v. Tidzump" on Justia Law

Defendant-appellant Tremale Henry was on supervised release after term in prison when he got into an altercation with another man outside an Oklahoma City night club. At the probation revocation hearing that followed, the district court found Henry responsible for two separate assaults with a dangerous weapon. In the first assault, the court found that Henry swung a knife at his victim but missed. In the second assault an hour later, the court found that Henry struck again, this time successfully stabbing his victim. The court found each assault independently sufficient to warrant revocation of Henry’s supervised release. It then concluded that the two assaults, along with a third violation for lying to his probation officer, collectively warranted a new prison term of 24 months followed by six further years of supervised release. On appeal Mr. Henry argues that the district court erred by relying on hearsay in reaching its judgment. Finding only that the district court relied on hearsay for the second assault, the Tenth Circuit affirmed in part, and reversed in part, remanding for recalculation of Henry's sentence. View "United States v. Henry" on Justia Law