Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Rande Isabella was convicted of persuading and attempting to persuade S.F., a 14-year-old girl, to “engage . . . in any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense” (Count 1), and of attempting to persuade S.F. to produce child pornography (Count 2). On appeal, he argued: (1) the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions; (2) the district court made six improper evidentiary rulings; and (3) his convictions and sentences under 18 U.S.C. sections 2422(b) and 2251(a) and (e) violated the Double Jeopardy Clause. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed Isabella's convictions. View "United States v. Isabella" on Justia Law

Defendant Dustin Ash pled guilty to two counts of being a felon in possession of a firearm. His Presentence Investigation Report (“PSR”) identified a 2012 Kansas conviction for reckless aggravated battery as a “crime of violence” under U.S.S.G. 4B1.2(a). Concluding that Ash had one such prior conviction, the PSR set his base offense level at 20 pursuant to section 2K2.1(a)(4)(A). After making several adjustments, the PSR indicated Ash’s total offense level was 23. Paired with a criminal history category of V, the PSR determined his Guidelines range was 84 to 105 months’ imprisonment. In a cross-appeal, the parties challenged two district court rulings that considered whether certain offenses were crimes of violence under U.S.S.G. 4B1.2(a). The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals determined : (1) the U.S. Supreme Court recently determined that robbery qualified as a crime of violence if the offense required the perpetrator to overcome victim resistance; and (2) offenses with a mens rea of recklessness cannot qualify as crimes of violence. The Court thus held that Dustin Ash’s Missouri conviction for second-degree robbery was a crime of violence, and his Kansas conviction for reckless aggravated battery was also a crime of violence. Because Ash had two prior convictions for crimes of violence under the Guidelines, the district court miscalculated his advisory Guidelines range. The Tenth Circuit then remanded this case and instructed the district court to vacate Ash’s sentence and resentence him consistent with its opinion. View "United States v. Ash" on Justia Law

In 2014, a federal grand jury indicted Delano Medina. He appeared for the first time in federal court 27 months later on January 11, 2017. During that time, Medina was transferred between various state authorities in three different states on at least 10 different sets of charges and was tried in two different state courts. He moved to dismiss the federal indictment, arguing that the delay violated his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial. He contended that the pretrial delay impaired his defense because his cell phone containing alibi evidence was lost before he was brought to federal court. He also argued the delay prevented him from invoking his rights under the Speedy Trial Act at an earlier date. The district court denied the motion because Medina had not adequately shown he suffered prejudice from the delay. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "United States v. Medina" on Justia Law

This appeal stemmed from a search, which took place after the police spoke with defendant Desmond Gaines. After a brief exchange, Gaines fled but was soon captured. The police then found cocaine, marijuana, PCP, drug paraphernalia, over $640, and a handgun. Gaines unsuccessfully moved to suppress this evidence, and he appealed denial of his suppression motion. Presented for the Tenth Circuit's review were issues of whether: (1) Gaines was seized by police; and (2) were his Fourth Amendment rights violated. After careful consideration of the facts presented at trial, the Tenth Circuit determined: (1) no, Gaines was not seized; and (2) the development of probable cause or the subsequent discovery of the arrest warrant did not attenuate the connection between the seizure and the drug/money evidence. The Court vacated the denial of Gaines’s motion to suppress. View "United States v. Gaines" on Justia Law

Defendant Ian Alexander Bowline was convicted by a jury on a number of charges involving unlawful prescriptions for oxycodone. He appealed his conviction, raising only one issue: whether the district court properly denied his untimely pretrial motion to dismiss his indictment on the ground of vindictive prosecution. The district court ruled: (1) he was procedurally barred because he had not shown good cause under Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(c)(3) to excuse his untimeliness; and (2) on the merits, he had not demonstrated that he was being subjected to a vindictive prosecution. After review, the Tenth Circuit Court of appeals affirmed, finding Defendant was not entitled to relief on appeal absent a showing of good cause to excuse the untimeliness of his motion. The Court therefore did not reach the merits of his vindictive-prosecution claim. View "United States v. Bowline" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Stacy Knapp entered a conditional plea of guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, for which she was sentenced to 36 months’ imprisonment and three years’ supervised release. The conditional plea allowed her to appeal the district court’s denial of her motion to suppress, and in the event it was successful, to withdraw her guilty plea. The validity of Knapp’s arrest was not at issue; this appeal turned on: (1) whether the search of her purse was one of her person for the purposes of Robinson; and (2) if the search was not of her person, whether the search was nevertheless justified because it was within “the area from within which [she] might [have] gain[ed] possession of a weapon or destructible evidence.” Knapp presented two arguments why the search of her purse was not one “of her person” at the time of her arrest: (1) the government was wrong on the facts because she was not carrying her purse when she was told she was under arrest, rather, it was sitting somewhere within the truck, and she had to “collect” it from the truck to bring it into the store; and (2) the district court did not make a specific factual finding comparing the exact time of the arrest with when Knapp grabbed her purse - It simply noted, “[Knapp] brought her purse with her into the grocery store.” The Tenth Circuit reversed and remanded, finding the search of Knapp’s purse was not one of her person for the purposes of United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218, 234 (1973), and because the search of her purse was not actually supported by the Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, 763 (1969) justifications, the exception for a search incident to arrest did not apply here. View "United States v. Knapp" on Justia Law

Taxpayers Neil Feinberg, Andrea Feinberg, and Kellie McDonald were shareholders in Total Health Concepts, LLC (THC), a Colorado company allegedly engaged in selling medical marijuana. After the Taxpayers claimed THC’s income and losses on their tax returns, the IRS conducted an audit and disallowed certain deductions under 26 U.S.C. 280E, which prohibited deductions for businesses engaged in unlawful trafficking of controlled substances. The IRS then recalculated the Taxpayers’ tax liability and issued a notice of deficiency for the unpaid balance. The Taxpayers challenged that determination in tax court, which affirmed on the basis that the Taxpayers had failed to substantiate the business expenses. Both parties agreed the tax court erred by injecting a substantiation issue into this case not raised in the notice of deficiency, and then placed the burden for refuting that claim on the Taxpayers. But the Commissioner argued the Tenth Circuit should affirm on the alternative ground that the Taxpayers did not meet their burden of proving the IRS’s determination that THC was unlawfully trafficking in a controlled substance was erroneous. The Taxpayers disagreed and contended placing the burden on them would violate their Fifth Amendment privilege. Because the Tenth Circuit concluded allocation of the burden of proof did not constitute “compulsion” under the Fifth Amendment, and because the Taxpayers made no attempt to meet their evidentiary burden, the Court affirmed the tax court on the alternative ground that section 280E prohibited the deductions. View "Feinberg v. CIR" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellee Gregory Orozco was convicted by a jury of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine (count 1), and possession with intent to distribute five grams or more of methamphetamine (count 2). Orozco moved for a new trial, alleging the government violated his Sixth Amendment right by interfering with his right to call a witness on his behalf. The district court granted the motion, vacated the two convictions, and dismissed the underlying counts of the superseding indictment. The government appealed, challenging the district court’s finding of prosecutorial misconduct and the remedy imposed. The Tenth Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. On remand, the district court was ordered to vacate its dismissal of the underlying counts of the superseding indictment to allow for retrial. View "United States v. Orozco" on Justia Law

Carlos Cuesta-Rodriguez challenges his Oklahoma conviction for first-degree murder and his accompanying sentence of death. The victim, Olimpia Fisher, and her adult daughter, Katya Chacon, lived with Cuesta-Rodriguez in a home Fisher and Cuesta-Rodriguez had purchased together. In the year following the home purchase, Cuesta-Rodriguez and Fisher’s relationship was strained. Cuesta- Rodriguez feared Fisher was cheating on him. Whenever Fisher and Chacon would leave the house, Cuesta-Rodriguez would question them “about where they were going and what they would be doing.” The relationship deteriorated to the point that both Cuesta-Rodriguez and Fisher wanted the other to move out. An argument between the two ended when Cuesta-Rodriquez shot Fisher in both eyes. The district court denied relief and denied a certificate of appealability (COA). The Tenth Circuit concluded Cuesta-Rodriguez was not persuasive in his argument that combined errors led to a trial that wasn’t “fundamentally fair.” As such, the Court affirmed the district court's judgment that Cuesta-Rodriquez was not entitled to relief. View "Cuesta-Rodriguez v. Carpenter" on Justia Law

Petitioner Christopher Hobdy, a Colorado state prisoner serving time for first degree assault and aggravated robbery, filed an application for federal habeas relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254. The criminal charges against Hobdy arose from an assault on the victim Jerry Williams outside a convenience store in 1997. The victim was a police officer with the City of Aurora, Colorado, who had a terminal illness and was living in a hospice at the time of the assault. Williams left to make a purchase at a nearby convenience store early in the morning; as he walked back to the hospice, Hobdy stuck the victim with a shovel. The victim fell to the ground, and his possessions fell out of his pocket. Hobdy picked the items up and ran away. Police located Hobdy and identified him from photographs taken from the store's surveillance camera. Hobdy's main argument at trial was that because of medicines the victim took to treat his terminal illness, his identification of Hobdy from the convenience store and surveillance photos was legally insufficient. The victim died months after the incident, and approximately 8 months prior to trial. In his post-conviction appeals, Hobdy argued he received insufficient assistance of trial and appellate counsel for a variety of reasons, centering primarily on mishandling of testimony and trial procedure, and for failing to preserve certain issues related to the jury's deadlock notes. The district court granted Hobdy’s 2254 application and ordered the State of Colorado to retry him within ninety days. Respondents Rick Raemisch, the Executive Director of the Colorado Department of Corrections, and Phil Weiser, the Attorney General for the State of Colorado, appealed the district court’s decision. The Tenth Circuit concluded Hobdy's principal arguments for habeas relief were procedurally barred and could not serve as the basis for relief. The Court therefore reversed the district court, remanded the case with directions to enter judgment in favor of respondents. View "Hobdy v. Raemisch" on Justia Law