Justia U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

After the government charged defendant-appellant Apache Young with one count of violating the felon-in-possession statute, he moved to suppress the firearms seized from his truck during an encounter with law enforcement. Young argued: (1) officers lacked reasonable suspicion to stop him; and (2) even if he was justifiably detained, the scope of his detention was not reasonably related to the justification for the initial encounter. The district court rejected both arguments. Young preserved the issue in a conditional plea agreement and made the same arguments he did at the district court to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. Finding no reversible error in the district court's judgment, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "United States v. Young" on Justia Law

Defendant-appellant Jimmy Lee Brooks was convicted by jury of unlawful possession of ammunition and witness tampering. The ammunition charge stemmed from an incident in which Brooks shot a firearm at a car his then-girlfriend was riding in, striking her in the buttocks. Over Brooks’ objection, the sentencing court concluded he committed attempted second-degree murder and applied a cross-reference to the attempted murder guideline, U.S.S.G. § 2A2.1. The district court was also required to calculate the guidelines under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1 and, in doing so, applied a heightened base offense level on the assumption that Oklahoma aggravated assault and battery was a crime of violence. On appeal to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, Brooks renewed his challenge to the attempted murder cross-reference, arguing that the district court was required to find he acted with specific intent to kill but instead found he acted with malice aforethought. To this, the Tenth Circuit agreed that the attempted murder cross-reference was appropriate only when the defendant intended to kill and that the court’s finding on malice aforethought was insufficient to support the cross-reference. Brooks also argued the district court plainly erred because, under United States v. Winrow, 49 F.4th 1372 (10th Cir. 2022), Oklahoma aggravated assault and battery was not a crime of violence. The government conceded, and the Tenth Circuit agreed, that Oklahoma aggravated assault and battery was not a crime of violence. But because Brooks’ argument that his substantial rights were impacted by this error was speculative, the Tenth Circuit left the issue open for the district court to consider on remand. Accordingly, Brooks’ sentence was vacated and his case remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Brooks" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Jeffrey Helvie appealed a district court’s decision to grant Defendant Chad Jenkins, an Adams County, Colorado, deputy sheriff, qualified immunity on Helvie’s claim that the deputy used excessive force against Helvie during a traffic stop. On August 23, 2018, at approximately 11:45 p.m., Deputy Jenkins observed Plaintiff make several traffic infractions while driving a Nissan pickup truck. The vehicle window was partially down when Deputy Jenkins approached. According to Deputy Jenkins, he could smell the strong odor of burnt marijuana coming out of the window, though Plaintiff disputed having smoked marijuana that day. Plaintiff handed his driver’s license and registration to Deputy Jenkins, but had difficulty providing his proof of insurance (which was on his phone) due to either poor cellular reception or Plaintiff's inability to correctly enter a passcode. According to Deputy Jenkins, he believed that Plaintiff was operating a vehicle while under the influence and wanted to conduct further investigation. When Plaintiff did not get out of the vehicle, Deputy Jenkins grabbed Plaintiff's arm and ordered him out of the vehicle. According to Deputy Jenkins, Plaintiff pulled away. Deputy Jenkins then grabbed Plaintiff's leg and pulled him out of the vehicle, causing Plaintiff to land on his back. As Deputy Jenkins was pulling Plaintiff out of the vehicle, he observed a handgun in the pocket of the driver’s side door. After review of Plaintiff's complaint, the Tenth Circuit determined he failed to show that Deputy Jenkins violated his constitutional rights and, necessarily flowing from that holding, Plaintiff failed to show that his constitutional rights allegedly violated were clearly established. View "Helvie v. Jenkins" on Justia Law

Defendant Ivan Faunce appealed the revocation of his supervised release. While on supervised release, Faunce allegedly beat his ex-girlfriend, E.B., and locked her in an RV. The district court: (1) found Faunce had committed kidnapping, aggravated assault, criminal mischief, and other violations of the terms of his supervised release; and (2) sentenced Faunce to two years in prison and one more year of supervised release. Faunce appealed, arguing: (1) the district court plainly erred by constructively amending the petition; and (2) the district court plainly erred or abused its discretion by allowing a government witness to testify by Zoom. After review of the trial court record, the Tenth Circuit found no reversible error and affirmed the revocation and sentence. View "United States v. Faunce" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Aaron Porter entered a conditional plea of guilty to one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm, and was sentenced to 43 months’ imprisonment and three years’ supervised release. He reserved the right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress a firearm found inside of his backpack. On appeal, to the Tenth Circuit, he argued that the Denver police conducted a warrantless search of his backpack and that the district court erred in finding that: (1) he had abandoned the backpack; and (2) the firearm would have been discovered pursuant to an inventory search. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed Porter's conviction and sentence. View "United States v. Porter" on Justia Law

Petitioner-Appellant Anthony Santucci appealed the denial of his petition for habeas relief. In 2014, a military jury convicted Santucci of rape, forcible sodomy, battery, and adultery. He argued a court-martial trial judge deprived him of his Fifth Amendment right to due process by failing to instruct the jury on an affirmative defense and issuing unconstitutional propensity instructions at his trial. The U.S. Army Court of Criminal Appeals (the “ACCA”) agreed with Santucci that the court-martial tribunal erred on both issues; nevertheless, it found these errors were harmless and affirmed Santucci’s convictions. In his habeas petition, Santucci argued, in relevant part, that the ACCA misapplied the harmless error standard by failing to review the cumulative impact of the erroneous instructions. Because, in his view, the military tribunals deprived him of his constitutional right to a fair trial, Santucci contended that the district court was authorized to review the merits of his claims. On habeas review, the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas denied Santucci’s petition, finding that the ACCA had fully and fairly considered his claims. Santucci appealed again, but to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, arguing that the federal district court should have adjudicated his constitutional claims on the merits. Had the court done so, Santucci contended habeas corpus relief would have been appropriate because the erroneous instructions, viewed cumulatively, prejudiced him beyond a reasonable doubt. The Tenth Circuit affirmed: "Santucci points to nothing in the ACCA’s analysis that causes us to question whether its thorough review encompassed his cumulative-error argument. Rather, he seeks to relitigate his contentions against a finding of harmless error that were already considered—and rejected—by the ACCA ... we cannot fault the ACCA’s analysis—much less subject it to full merits review—simply because it viewed this evidence differently than Mr. Santucci. In the habeas context, the district court was in no position to reevaluate evidence when it was already presented to the military court—nor are we." View "Santucci v. Commandant" on Justia Law

Defendant Lougary Eddington appeals the 84-month sentence he received after pleading guilty to one count of being a felon in possession of ammunition. The sentence was at the bottom of the 84-105-month Guidelines range, as calculated by the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. Eddington contended the district court erred in imposing this sentence because it: (1) improperly applied a four-level enhancement to his base offense level for possessing ammunition “in connection with another felony offense” under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B); and (2) failed to adequately consider the need to avoid sentencing disparities between Eddington and one of his codefendants. After review, the Tenth Circuit determined Eddington waived his challenge to the district court’s consideration of sentencing disparities, but that the district court procedurally erred when it applied a four-level enhancement. Accordingly, the Court vacated Eddington’s sentence and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Eddington" on Justia Law

Defendant Michael Hunsaker was one of 19 alleged co-conspirators charged in a 23-count indictment in Oklahoma relating to drug trafficking. Defendant was charged in two counts: Count 1 charged him with conspiring to traffic 500 grams or more of methamphetamine; and Count 18 charged him with possession with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine. Defendant pled guilty to both counts without a plea agreement. The Presentence Investigation Report (PSR) described Defendant as the “second in command” of a drug trafficking organization [DTO], concluded he was a “manager or supervisor” of the DTO, and recommended a 3-level enhancement to his offense level pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(b) (2018). Over Defendant’s objection, the district court agreed with the PSR’s 3-level enhancement under § 3B1.1(b). Defendant’s advisory guideline range was 168 to 210 months; the district court sentenced Defendant to 168 months’ imprisonment. Defendant appealed, challenging his characterization as the “manager or supervisor” of a drug conspiracy as that phrase was used in § 3B1.1(b). Reviewing the district court’s findings of fact under the clearly erroneous standard and the application of those facts to the guidelines de novo, the Tenth Circuit reversed. The Court found the undisputed evidence did not establish by a preponderance that Defendant was a “manager or supervisor” subject to a 3-level enhancement to his offense level under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(b). The case was remanded to the district court with instructions to vacate Defendant’s sentence and resentence him. View "United States v. Hunsaker" on Justia Law

Two expert witnesses testified about the credibility of defendant-appellant Russell Griffith, and the jury later found him guilty of sexually abusing his stepdaughter. The issue this case presented for the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals involved the impact of that opinion testimony on the jury’s finding of guilt. The Court assessed the likely impact based on the parties’ theories and the trial evidence and found both sides focused mainly on the credibility of the stepdaughter rather than Griffith himself. "The focus on the stepdaughter’s credibility softened whatever impact would otherwise have existed from the expert testimony on Mr. Griffith’s credibility." The Court determined the resulting impact was not enough to substantially affect the jury’s finding of guilt. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the convictions. View "United States v. Griffith" on Justia Law

Five individuals were convicted of murder under the Violent Crimes in Aid of Racketeering (“VICAR”) Act: Arturo Garcia, Billy Garcia, Edward Troup, Andrew Gallegos, and Joe Gallegos. The five were members of the Syndicato de Nuevo México (“SNM”), a violent gang operating in and from New Mexico state prisons. After a joint trial, a jury convicted Billy Garcia, Troup, and Joe Gallegos for the 2001 SNM-ordered in-prison murders; Arturo Garcia and Troup for a 2007 SNM-ordered in-prison murder; and Andrew Gallegos and Joe Gallegos for a 2012 out-of-prison murder and conspiracy to murder. All five defendants separately appealed. Because their appeals arose from the same trial and raised many of the same or overlapping issues, the Tenth Circuit addressed them together. As relevant here, Count 1 alleged Billy Garcia, Troup, Joe Gallegos, and two others murdered Frank Castillo in 2001. Count 2 alleged that, on the same day, Billy Garcia and four others murdered Ronaldo Garza. Count 3 alleged that, in June 2007, Arturo Garcia, Troup, and three others murdered Freddie Sanchez. Counts 4 and 5 alleged Andrew Gallegos and Joe Gallegos conspired to murder and murdered Adrian Burns. Count 13 charged Joe Gallegos with assault of Jose Gomez with a dangerous weapon. And Counts 14 and 15 alleged Joe Gallegos and several others conspired to murder and attempted to murder Gomez. Counts 1 through 5 and 13 through 15 were charged pursuant to VICAR. Finally, Count 16 charged Joe Gallegos and others with the non-VICAR crime of witness tampering based on an attempt to prevent Gomez from testifying against Joe Gallegos. Because the Government failed to provide evidence from which the jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt that Andrew Gallegos and Joe Gallegos conspired to murder and murdered Burns for a VICAR purpose, the Tenth Circuit vacated the convictions on counts 4 and 5; the Court affirmed the convictions on Counts 1 through 3. View "United States v. Garcia (Arturo)" on Justia Law