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

The case revolves around Mr. Lyndell Daniels, who was detained by law enforcement officers who linked him to a stolen Glock firearm based on his name. Daniels was charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm. Daniels moved to suppress his name as the fruit of an unlawful investigative detention, arguing that the officers had no reasonable suspicion to detain him. The district court agreed with Daniels and granted his motion. The government appealed this decision, arguing that the district court erred because there was reasonable suspicion to detain Daniels.The case originated from a near-anonymous call to the Aurora Police Department, expressing concern about three Black men, wearing dark hoodies and jeans, intermittently taking guns in and out of their pockets and getting in and out of a dark SUV. The caller believed they were “getting ready to do something,” but reported no illegality. The police arrived at the scene and detained Daniels, who was standing near the SUV. The officers did not observe any illegal activity or firearms when they arrived.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court found that the totality of the circumstances known to the officer when he detained Daniels did not amount to reasonable suspicion. The court noted that the 911 call, the presence and actions of the SUV, the time of the encounter, and the location of the encounter were not sufficient to establish reasonable suspicion. The court concluded that Daniels' detention was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment, and the district court's grant of Daniels' motion to suppress was proper. View "United States v. Daniels" on Justia Law

The case involves Douglas Smith, a non-Indian, who was convicted of involuntary manslaughter for an act he committed on his property located within the exterior boundaries of the Pueblo of Santa Clara. Smith shot and killed Maria Gallegos, who he saw trying to break into a trailer on his property. Prior to trial, Smith moved to dismiss the case for lack of federal jurisdiction, arguing that the federal district court lacked criminal jurisdiction over crimes committed on his property and that Congress acted outside its constitutional authority when it passed the Indian Pueblo Land Act Amendments of 2005. The district court denied his motion.Smith's case was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. The appellate court had to decide whether federal criminal jurisdiction extends to land owned by a non-Indian within the exterior boundaries of a Pueblo. The court affirmed the district court's decision, concluding that Smith's property is Indian country under 18 U.S.C. § 1151, and therefore, his crime is subject to federal criminal jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 1152.Smith also claimed that the 2005 Amendment is unconstitutional as applied to him. The court disagreed, holding that the 2005 Amendment did not unconstitutionally extend federal criminal jurisdiction to Smith's land. The court reasoned that the 2005 Amendment only exercised preexisting federal jurisdiction over Smith's land and was thus not an unconstitutional enactment as applied to Smith.Lastly, Smith contended that the district court erred in declining his request for a two-level sentence reduction for accepting responsibility for his crime. The appellate court found no clear error in the district court's determination, noting that Smith had challenged the factual element of intent at trial, which provided a clear basis to conclude that he did not accept responsibility. The court affirmed the district court's decision. View "United States v. Smith" on Justia Law

In this case, the defendant, Patrick Murphy, was convicted of murder, murder in perpetration of kidnapping, and kidnapping resulting in death. The crimes occurred in 1999, but Murphy was not indicted until 2020, following a Supreme Court decision that clarified jurisdictional issues related to crimes committed in Indian Country. Murphy appealed his convictions, arguing that there was insufficient evidence to support the kidnapping charges, that the prosecution was barred by the statute of limitations, and that the nearly two-decade delay between the murder and the federal prosecution violated his Fifth Amendment due process rights.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit agreed with Murphy's argument regarding the kidnapping charges. The court held that, even viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, it did not show that Murphy held the victim for an appreciable period of time, which is a requirement under the federal kidnapping statute. However, the court rejected Murphy's other two arguments. The court found that the statute of limitations did not bar the prosecution because the crimes with which Murphy was charged are, as a general matter, punishable by death and thus not subject to the general five-year statute of limitations for non-capital federal crimes. The court also found that Murphy failed to demonstrate that the twenty-year delay in bringing the federal prosecution against him violated his Fifth Amendment due process rights.As a result, the court reversed Murphy's kidnapping-related convictions but affirmed his conviction for murder. The case was remanded to the district court for resentencing. View "United States v. Murphy" on Justia Law

The case revolves around an incident where Colorado Springs Police Officers Robert McCafferty and Christopher Pryor responded to a 911-call placed by Sasha Cronick reporting a drug overdose. During the incident, Officer Pryor questioned Cronick, which escalated into an argument, leading to her arrest for failure to desist and disperse in violation of Colorado Springs Code § 9.2.103. Cronick filed a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging the officers violated her constitutional rights. The officers asserted qualified immunity, but the district court denied their claim.The district court found several disputes of fact, including whether Officer Pryor issued an order for Cronick to leave the scene, whether Cronick was obstructing the scene, and whether Officer Pryor grabbed Cronick's arm to escort her away or after she had already turned to walk away. The court concluded that these disputes prevented it from finding that the officers had probable cause to arrest Cronick.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court concluded that a reasonable officer under these circumstances would not have arguable probable cause to arrest Cronick for failure to desist or disperse. The court also found that the officers did not have probable cause to conduct a search incident to arrest. The officers failed to articulate specific facts that led them to believe Cronick posed a threat and offered nothing beyond conclusory references to safety. Therefore, the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity because they violated Cronick's clearly established constitutional rights. View "Cronick v. Pryor" on Justia Law

The case involves Kendall Len Burgess, who was convicted for aggravated sexual abuse and abusive sexual contact involving a seven-year-old victim, P.G. The primary issue was whether the district court erred in admitting a fifty-minute video recording of a forensic interview with P.G., conducted three days after the last incident of alleged sexual abuse. The interview was admitted under the residual exception to the rule against hearsay, after P.G., then aged nine, testified inconsistently at trial about the acts committed by Burgess.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma had convicted Burgess based on the evidence presented, including the video recording. The court found that P.G.’s statements during the recorded interview were trustworthy and more probative than any other evidence that could be obtained through reasonable efforts.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the lower court's decision. The appellate court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the recorded interview. The court also rejected Burgess's other arguments, including allegations of prosecutorial misconduct and cumulative error. The court held that the prosecutor's questions and closing argument did not warrant reversing Burgess's convictions. Therefore, the court affirmed both of Burgess's convictions. View "United States v. Burgess" on Justia Law

In January 2021, John William Thomas Flechs, using the pseudonym “John Breezy,” began conversations on the Kik online messaging platform with someone he believed to be a 14-year-old boy. In fact, Flechs was messaging Sergeant John Haning, a member of the Rogers County, Oklahoma Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force. Over the next four days, Flechs and the minor discussed sexual topics in graphic detail. After they discussed meeting in person, Flechs asked the minor if he would be going to the skatepark. When Flechs arrived at the skatepark, he handed two Dr. Pepper sodas to an officer posing as the minor. Officers then arrested him.A grand jury indicted Flechs for attempted enticement of a minor in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b). A petit jury returned a guilty verdict. The district court sentenced Flechs to 120 months in prison and five years of supervised release. Flechs timely appealed.On appeal, Flechs argued that the trial evidence was insufficient to prove that he intended to entice the minor or took a substantial step toward enticement. He also argued that the jury instruction on the term “grooming” violated Federal Rule of Evidence 605, contained an unconstitutional presumption on the element of intent, and misstated the law. The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit rejected these arguments and affirmed the conviction. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to convict Flechs of attempted enticement of a minor under 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b). The court also held that the jury instruction on the term “grooming” did not violate Federal Rule of Evidence 605, did not contain an unconstitutional presumption on the element of intent, and did not misstate the law. View "United States v. Flechs" on Justia Law

In 2015, Jason Vincent Bradley was convicted on multiple counts related to firearm possession and drug trafficking. He was sentenced to concurrent 120-month sentences on three counts and a consecutive 60-month sentence on the fourth count, followed by three years of supervised release. In 2021, Bradley filed a motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), citing the need to care for his minor children due to his mother's ill health and his own health conditions that increased his risk of serious illness from COVID-19.The United States District Court for the District of Colorado denied Bradley's motion for compassionate release. The court acknowledged Bradley's claims of extraordinary and compelling reasons for release but found that the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) did not support a sentence reduction. Bradley appealed the decision, arguing that the district court erred by not considering his proffered extraordinary and compelling reasons for release as part of its § 3553(a) analysis and by not accounting for his post-sentencing conduct and rehabilitation.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court found that Bradley had waived his first argument by not raising it in the lower court. Regarding his second argument, the court found that the district court had considered Bradley's post-sentencing conduct and rehabilitation, and it had provided a rationale for its decision. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Bradley's motion for compassionate release. View "United States v. Bradley" on Justia Law

In December 2021, Kevin Alonso Zamora was discovered by law enforcement officers in Taylorsville, Utah, near a car that had been reported stolen. As officers approached, all suspects except Zamora entered the vehicle and drove off, while Zamora fled on foot. During his flight, Zamora ran through a residential neighborhood and a commercial area, eventually collapsing near a Taco Bell drive-thru. Officers found a gun tucked inside Zamora's pants, which had discharged during his flight, injuring him.Zamora was indicted and later pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. During sentencing, the district court applied a two-level enhancement under § 3C1.2 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines, which Zamora challenged as being erroneously applied. He argued that his armed flight did not recklessly create a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury to another person.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court found that Zamora's flight from law enforcement with a loaded gun, not carried in a holster, which discharged during his flight, constituted reckless behavior. The court also found that Zamora's actions created a serious risk of bodily injury to law enforcement. Furthermore, the court noted that Zamora ran directly in front of an occupied vehicle moments before his gun discharged, creating a substantial risk of serious bodily injury to another person. Therefore, the court concluded that the district court did not err in applying the two-level enhancement under § 3C1.2. View "United States v. Zamora" on Justia Law

The case involves an appeal by Jamaryus Moore against his sentence imposed following a probation violation. Moore had initially pleaded guilty to a Hobbs Act robbery and, despite facing a sentencing guideline range of 51 to 63 months, requested probation. The court gave Moore a choice of a 51-month imprisonment or probation, with the understanding that a violation would lead to an 84-month sentence. Moore opted for probation, but he subsequently violated its terms, and the court imposed the previously agreed 84-month sentence. On appeal, this sentence was reversed, with a two-step sentencing process proposed. On remand, the district court applied this two-step process, resulting in an 80-month sentence. Moore appealed, arguing that the district court was wrong in applying the two-step process.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit held that the two-step process was not dicta and could not be disregarded under the clearly erroneous/manifest injustice exception to the law of the case doctrine. The court noted that the two-step process was integral to the initial appeal's holding that the district court had plainly erred and that the error affected Moore’s substantial rights. The court concluded that Moore had not shown that the previous decision was clearly erroneous or that applying it would result in manifest injustice. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment. View "United States v. Moore" on Justia Law

The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed a lower court's ruling regarding a veteran, Bruce Hay, who was convicted of ten counts of stealing government property and six counts of wire fraud. The case centered around Hay's alleged exaggeration of his disability to gain benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). The VA conducted a six-year investigation, even installing a pole camera that recorded Hay's daily activities outside his house for 68 days.Hay appealed his conviction on three grounds: insufficient evidence supporting his conviction, violation of his Fourth Amendment rights by the VA's installation of the pole camera, and wrongful admission of evidence by the district judge. The court rejected all three arguments.First, the court ruled that Hay's fraudulent acquisition of government property constituted "stealing" under 18 U.S.C. § 641 and that sufficient evidence was presented at trial to support his conviction for stealing government property and wire fraud.Second, the court held that the use of the pole camera did not constitute a search under the Fourth Amendment as it only captured his activities in public view.Lastly, the court rejected Hay's claim that evidence post-dating the charging period was improperly admitted, finding that the district court acted within its discretion.In conclusion, the court affirmed the district court's denial of a judgment of acquittal and the admission of contested evidence. View "United States v. Hay" on Justia Law