Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Rodney Harrell appealed his conviction for trafficking in methamphetamine, trafficking in marijuana, and possession of drug paraphernalia. Harrell argued his convictions should have been vacated because: (1) the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress; and (2) the district court erred in denying his objection to the reduction of peremptory challenges imposed by the Idaho Supreme Court’s emergency order adopted in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed Harrell’s judgment of conviction. View "Idaho v. Harrell" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court granting Defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained during a traffic stop, holding that because Defendant's license plate cover violated Iowa Code 321.37 it was reasonable for Iowa State Patrol troopers to stop his SUV, the stop was not unconstitutional, the exclusionary rule did not apply, and there were no grounds to suppress evidence from the stop.Because Defendant's rear license plate was shrouded with a tinted plastic cover troopers found it difficult to read the plate. The troopers stopped Defendant to warn him that the cover violated Iowa law and during the stop uncovered evidence leading to Defendant's charges for operating while intoxicated and child endangerment. The district court granted Defendant's motion to suppress, concluding that the traffic stop was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the traffic stop was constitutional because the license plate cover violated an Iowa traffic statute; and (2) therefore, the district court erred in suppressing evidence from the stop. View "State v. Griffin" on Justia Law

Moses Ben Yalartai appealed after he pled guilty to gross sexual imposition. Yalartai argued the district court violated his right to self-representation and erred in denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, concluding the court did not abuse its discretion in denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea and Yalartai waived the right to challenge whether the court violated his right of self- representation by pleading guilty. View "North Dakota v. Yalartai" on Justia Law

Sean Kovalevich appealed a district court order denying his motion to correct an illegal sentence under N.D.R.Crim.P. 35(a). Kovalevich was subject to a pre-filing order prohibiting him from filing “any new litigation or any new documents in existing litigation” without first obtaining leave of the court. The North Dakota Supreme Court treated the court’s current order as denying Kovalevich leave of court to file new documents. Orders denying leave to file were not appealable. The Supreme Court therefore dismissed Kovalevich’s appeal. View "North Dakota v. Kovalevich" on Justia Law

Bradley Morales appealed a criminal judgment entered after he pleaded guilty to murder. Morales was convicted by jury of murdering his ex-girlfriend. He was granted a new trial after it was found Morales’ right to a public trial was violated. On the fourth day of the new trial, Morales sought to enter a guilty plea. In verifying his plea was made “knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently,” Morales made a lengthy statement, admitting to stabbing the victim. He apologized to the victim’s family. Roughly nine months later, Morales moved to withdraw his plea. He was thereafter sentenced to 35 years imprisonment. Morales argued the district court erred by not addressing a statement he made at the sentencing hearing indicating he was suffering from depression and anxiety. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, concluding the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Morales’ motion to withdraw his guilty plea. View "North Dakota v. Morales" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court ordering reinstatement of D.H.'s firearm rights, holding that there was no error on the part of the district court.After D.H. attempted suicide in 1995 a mental health board obtained a mental health commitment. As a result of D.H.'s commitment, federal and state statutes restricted his rights to purchase and possess firearms. In 2011, the Legislature enacted Neb. Rev. State. 71-963, which created a procedure whereby those subject to firearm restrictions resulting from a mental health-related commitment or adjudication could petition to have those restrictions removed. D.H. filed a motion to remove his firearm restrictions under section 71-963. The Mental Health Board of the 10th Judicial District of Nebraska denied the petition. The district court initially affirmed the denial but, upon reconsideration, granted the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not commit an error of law or abuse its discretion in sustaining D.H.'s motion to reconsider, alter, or amend. View "In re Interest of D.H." on Justia Law

A defendant in a criminal proceeding (“Defendant”) was arrested based on a co-defendant’s statement. The petitioning Newspaper sought an interview with the then-unindicted co-defendant (“Co-defendant”). Subsequently, Defendant filed a subpoena seeking all material relevant to Newspaper’s interview with co-defendant.The trial court denied Newspaper’s request to quash the subpoena, finding that newsperson’s immunity must yield to a criminal defendant’s right to a fair trial. The court ultimately held Newspaper in contempt.The Fifth Appellate District affirmed the trial court’s denial of a Newspaper’s motion to quash a subpoena but vacated the trial court’s finding of contempt. View "Bakersfield Californian v. Super. Ct." on Justia Law

Defendant-appellant Larry Martin appealed the sentence he received after pleading guilty to one count of Stalking and two counts of Non-Compliance with Bond (“NCB”). The trial court entered its first sentencing order on August 12, 2022, followed by three corrected sentencing orders, entered on September 8, September 21, and October 17, 2022, respectively. It was undisputed that the trial court’s first sentencing order was illegal because it imposed a sentence that exceeded the maximum lawful sentence for Stalking, which was three years at Level V supervision. In an email dated August 29, 2022, Martin’s trial counsel informed the trial court of the illegality of the sentence, and that the State recommended that the trial court fix its error by redistributing Martin’s five-year prison sentence across the Stalking conviction and the two NCB convictions. In a corrected sentencing order, issued on September 8, 2022, the trial court reduced Martin’s sentence for Stalking to three years of incarceration at Level V supervision, to bring it in line with the lawful maximum sentence. The trial court then added one year of incarceration at Level V supervision, suspended for probation, to the suspended fines for each NCB conviction. It was undisputed that if this had been the original sentence, Martin’s sentence would have been lawful. Martin appealed the trial court’s sentencing order insofar as it modified his sentence for the NCB convictions, arguing that by increasing his sentence for the NCB convictions, the trial court effectively resentenced him for those convictions despite the fact that he had already served them. This was because those sentences consisted solely of fines that were suspended when imposed and as such, were completed as of the date of the sentence. According to Martin, he completed his sentence for both NCB convictions on August 12, 2022, and any subsequent resentencing was barred by principles of double jeopardy. The Delaware Supreme Court was not persuaded by this argument and affirmed the sentence imposed by the trial court in its September 8, 2022 sentencing order, as modified by the September 21, 2022 and October 17, 2022 sentencing orders. View "Martin v. Delaware" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the decision of the district court granting summary judgment for Defendant on Plaintiff's claims for disability discrimination, in violation of Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Mass Gen. Laws ch. 151B, and for age discrimination, in violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151B, holding that there was no error.The district court (1) concluded that Plaintiff had failed to carry her burden to make out a prima facie case that she was a "qualified individual" under the ADA and thus also failed to do so under chapter 151B; and (2) concluded that Plaintiff had failed to demonstrate a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Defendant's proffered reason for her termination was pretextual. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) Defendant was entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff's ADA and Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151B disability discrimination claims; and (2) the district court did not err in granting summary judgment for Defendant on Plaintiff's claim of age discrimination under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151B. View "Der Sarkisian v. Austin Preparatory School" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court finding that Petitioner violated the conditions of his supervised release and revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to a two-year term in prison, holding that United States v. Haymond, 588 U.S. __ (2019), does not apply to a supervised release revocation pursuant to W. Va. Code 61-12-26 because section 61-12-26 does not require a mandatory minimum sentence upon revocation.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the revocation of Petitioner's supervised release pursuant to W. Va. Code 62-12-26 did not violate Petitioner's constitutional rights; (2) the circuit court did not err by denying Petitioner's motion to dismiss the petition or by sentencing Petitioner to a term of imprisonment without holding a jury trial when revoking his supervised release; and (3) the circuit court did not clearly err in finding by clear and convincing evidence that Petitioner conspired to deliver crack cocaine, in violation of conditions of his supervised release. View "State v. White" on Justia Law