Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Petitioner-appellant Daniel Cortez-Lazcano was convicted by jury of child sexual abuse. After unsuccessfully appealing his conviction to the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (OCCA), Cortez-Lazcano sought habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in federal court. He argued, among other things: (1) the prosecution used its peremptory strikes to remove prospective jurors based on their race, in violation of his Fourteenth Amendment rights under Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986); and (2) that defense counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to notify him of a favorable plea offer, in violation of his Sixth Amendment rights under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). Applying the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) of 1996, the district court denied habeas relief but granted Cortez-Lazcano a certificate of appealability (COA) on his Batson and Strickland claims. Because the OCCA’s decision did not involve an unreasonable application of federal law or rest on an unreasonable determination of the facts, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. View "Cortez-Lazcano v. Whitten" on Justia Law

StreetMedia and Turnpike Media were companies that are in the sign business: owners of billboards and other advertising signs. They contended that Colorado’s regulatory scheme violated the First Amendment because it treated billboards, so-called “advertising devices,” differently depending on whether the message was paid for or not. The district court disagreed and dismissed the case. Applying recent Supreme Court precedent, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed: Colorado’s signage act was a constitutionally permissible policy choice—it furthered Colorado’s objectives of promoting roadside safety and aesthetics. View "StreetMediaGroup, et al. v. Stockinger, et al." on Justia Law

Defendant Earl Hardy Morrow appeals his convictions for distribution, receipt, and possession of child pornography. On appeal, defendant argued the district court erred in: (1) permitting the government to present evidence that his electronic devices contained pornographic anime, contrary to the restrictions on the use of other-act evidence under Fed. R. Evid. 403 and 404(b); (2) preventing him from offering statements against interest by his brother Kory under Fed. R. Evid. 804(b)(3); and (3) failing to correct the government’s statement at closing argument that Kory had not yet been prosecuted when charges against him had in fact been dropped. Defendant also argued the cumulative effect of these errors required reversal of his conviction. The Tenth Circuit affirmed: the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the government’s other-act evidence or in excluding Kory’s statements against interest, nor did it commit reversible error in failing to correct the government’s misstatement during closing argument. "There being at most one error, Mr. Morrow’s cumulative-error argument also fails." View "United States v. Morrow" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Carl Andersen alleged defendant Officer Vito DelCore used excessive force against him while securing a cell phone that Officer DelCore believed would contain incriminating evidence that Andersen or his fiancée had abused their child. The district court denied Officer DelCore’s motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds, ruling that Officer DelCore had used excessive force and that there was clearly established law that would have alerted him that the force he used was unreasonable and unconstitutional. Officer DelCore appealed the denial of summary judgment, arguing that he was entitled to qualified immunity. On the trial court record, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals found Officer DelCore used reasonable force under the circumstances, so no Fourth Amendment violation occurred. The district court therefore erred in denying Officer DelCore qualified immunity. View "Andersen v. DelCore, et al." on Justia Law

In 2019, the Oklahoma legislature unanimously passed the Patient’s Right to Pharmacy Choice Act. In response to the Act’s passage, the Pharmaceutical Care Management Association (PCMA), a trade association representing PBMs, sued to invalidate the Act, alleging that the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), and Medicare Part D, preempted the Act. The district court ruled that ERISA did not preempt the Act but that Medicare Part D preempted six of the thirteen challenged provisions. PCMA appealed the court’s ERISA ruling on four provisions of the Act and the court’s Medicare Part D ruling on one provision. After its review, the Tenth Circuit determined ERISA and Medicare Part D preempted the four challenged provisions, and therefore reversed. View "Pharmaceutical Care v. Mulready, et al." on Justia Law

An Oklahoma state court jury convicted Darrell Frederick of first-degree murder, attempted assault with a dangerous weapon, and domestic abuse. Based on the jury’s recommendation, the court sentenced Frederick to death for the murder. After his direct appeal and state post-conviction proceedings were unsuccessful, Frederick filed a habeas corpus application in federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The district court denied relief. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals granted a certificate of appealability (“COA”) on his claims that appellate counsel provided ineffective assistance and that there was cumulative error. Finding no reversible errors, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the denial of habeas relief. View "Frederick v. Quick" on Justia Law

In 2017, defendant-appellant Winter Rose Old Rock pleaded guilty to voluntary manslaughter. After completing her prison sentence, she began serving a three-year term of supervised release. Fourteen months later, she committed several violations of the terms of her release. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) and (h), the district court revoked her supervision and sentenced her to time served and thirty-one months of post-release supervision. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey, Old Rock objected to the new term of supervised release, arguing the term unconstitutionally exceeded the thirty-six-month maximum set out in § 3583 when combined with the post-release supervision she already served. The district court rejected this argument, citing a lack of precedent supporting the application of Apprendi to standard supervised release revocations. To this, the Tenth Circuit agreed: “Our caselaw illustrates that § 3583 authorizes terms of supervision upon revocation that cumulatively surpass the statutory maximum when combined with the defendant’s prior time served on supervision.” The Court therefore affirmed the district court’s judgment. The Court also determined that despite Old Rock’s failure to timely file a notice of appeal, the government forfeited its request for dismissal by not complying with 10th Cir. R. 27.3. View "United States v. Old Rock" on Justia Law

Defendant-appellant Edmond Warrington was charged in Oklahoma state court after he engaged in sexual activity with his mentally disabled, 18-year-old adopted niece. When the U.S. Supreme Court decided McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020), the federal government took over prosecution for the alleged sexual abuse. The district court denied a motion to suppress inculpatory statements Warrington made to federal agents during transport from state to federal custody. Warrington proceeded to trial, where he was convicted by a jury of three counts of sexual abuse in Indian Country and sentenced to 144 months’ imprisonment on each count, to run concurrently. The court also imposed a $15,000 special assessment under the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act of 2015 (“JVTA”), a penalty of $5,000 for each count of conviction. On appeal, Warrington argued: (1) the district court erred in denying his suppression motion because the agents questioned him in violation of the Sixth Amendment; and (2) the court plainly erred in imposing the JVTA assessment on a per count basis instead of imposing one $5,000 penalty in the case. The Tenth Circuit concluded the Sixth Amendment right to counsel had not yet attached in the federal proceeding and, in any event, Warrington voluntarily waived his right to counsel after receiving a Miranda warning, therefore, the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress. Warrington’s second issue raised was an issue of first impression for the Tenth Circuit, and the Court concluded the trial court did not commit plain error. View "United States v. Warrington" on Justia Law

Wichita Police were conducting a proactive patrol in a high-crime area. After officers pulled over Defendant John Canada for failing to engage his turn signal, one officer saw Defendant “strenuously arching his hips, reaching his right arm under the rear of his seat. Officers also believed Defendant delayed bringing his vehicle to a stop, which caused them concern. Defendant claimed the officers lacked reasonable suspicion to engage in a protective sweep. To this, the Tenth Circuit disagreed: the officers here could not have been sure that Defendant was dangerous or had a weapon present. But the furtive movement and slow roll provided enough for the officers to reasonably suspect that Defendant was both dangerous and had access to a weapon.” View "United States v. Canada" on Justia Law

Defendant Jeriah Budder, an enrolled member of the Cherokee Nation, killed David Jumper in Indian Country. He was charged by the State of Oklahoma with first-degree manslaughter. THe charges were dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction in the wake of McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S.Ct. 2452 (2020). A federal grand jury then indicted Defendant on three charges: (1) first-degree murder in Indian country; (2) carrying, using, brandishing and discharging a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence; and (3) causing the death of another in the course of (2). On appeal, defendant argued he was denied the due process of law guaranteed by the federal constitution because the retroactive application of McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S.Ct. 2452 (2020) deprived him of Oklahoma’s law of self-defense, which he argued was broader than the defense available to him under federal law. The Tenth Circuit held that the application of McGirt did not constitute an impermissible retroactive application of a judicial decision. Further, the Court rejected defendant’s argument that his sentence was substantively unreasonable. View "United States v. Budder" on Justia Law