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

Samuel Elliott pled guilty for producing and possessing child pornography. Each of the four possession counts concerned a different electronic device or medium on which Elliott stored his collection. On appeal, he argued three of the four possession counts were multiplicitous and thus violated the Double Jeopardy Clause. Elliott contends that because he possessed the different electronic devices in the same physical location and at the same time, he could not be convicted of distinct possession counts for each device. To this end, Elliott argued the rule of lenity requires a single possession conviction because the statute was ambiguous as to whether the unit of prosecution was a single device containing child pornography or the simultaneous possession of multiple devices containing child pornography. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed the statute’s unit of prosecution was ambiguous, and thus concluded the rule of lenity required the Court construe 18 U.S.C. 2252A(a)(5)(B) to preclude distinct charges for each electronic device or medium simultaneously possessed. The case was remanded back to the district court with instructions to vacate three of Elliott’s possession convictions and sentences. View "United States v. Elliott" on Justia Law

Manuel Romero was charged with one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm, and one count of knowingly possessing a stolen firearm. Romero moved to suppress the firearm that a Las Cruces police officer discovered in Romero’s backpack during a search incident to his arrest for obstructing an officer in violation of New Mexico Statute 30-22-1(D). The officer arrested Romero for obstruction because he failed to immediately comply with the officer’s request that he submit to a pat-down search. Romero argued in his motion that the firearm should have been suppressed because the officer had neither: (1) reasonable suspicion to conduct the pat-down search; nor (2) probable cause to arrest Romero for obstruction. The district court denied Romero’s motion. The Tenth Circuit reversed, agreeing with Romero’s latter argument that there was insufficient probable cause to support an arrest under section 30-22-1(D). Thus, the search of the backpack could not be supported as a search incident to arrest. The matter was remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Romero" on Justia Law

Oscar "O" Garcia was charged by indictment with money laundering, conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance, and possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance. Following plea negotiations, the government filed an information, charging Garcia with only two counts: conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance and money laundering. The parties entered into a plea agreement with a stipulated sentence of 180 months. Garcia consented to appearing before a federal magistrate judge for his change of plea hearing the same day. After Garcia’s change-of-plea hearing before the magistrate judge, but prior to his sentencing before the district judge, Garcia moved to withdraw his plea. The magistrate judge did not make a written recommendation nor did the clerk of court file a notice as to any objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation. This case called on the Tenth Circuit to resolve whether federal magistrate judges could accept and enter guilty pleas in criminal proceedings where the parties have consented to appearing before the magistrate judge. Longstanding precedent says they could, but in this case, Garcia argued this precedent was abrogated by subsequent changes to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and that only district court judges could accept pleas deemed to be dispositive. He contended these changes to the Rules allowed him to withdraw his previously accepted plea of guilty as a matter of right. The Tenth Circuit found Garcia’s argument persuasive, but felt bound by prior precedent. For that reason, the Court affirmed the district court. View "United States v. Garcia" on Justia Law

Jeffrey Antonio was driving his pickup truck a few miles north of Albuquerque when he was involved in a car accident. He was driving north but drifted into the southbound lane where he collided head-on with another vehicle. Antonio had been drinking, and at the time of the accident, he was significantly over the legal limit for driving. He had been convicted of driving under the influence on two occasions prior to his arrest in this case. This time, a passenger in the other vehicle was killed. A federal grand jury returned an indictment charging Antonio with one count of second-degree murder. As an enrolled member of the Laguna Pueblo, Antonio could be charged and tried in federal court if the accident occurred in Indian Country. The United States alleged that the accident occurred within the exterior boundaries of the Sandia Pueblo. Prior to trial, the United States filed a motion in limine asking the district court to rule that the site of the accident was in Indian Country to conclusively establish federal jurisdiction. After hearing the evidence, the district court judge stated he was “inclined to find” the site of the accident took place in Indian Country. One week before trial, Antonio filed a motion to dismiss the indictment for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 12(b)(2). He argued that, as a matter of law, the accident site was on privately owned land and not in Indian Country. Therefore, there was no federal jurisdiction. The Tenth Circuit concluded the crime occurred within the exterior boundaries of the Sandia Pueblo, and therefore the federal court for the District of New Mexico was the proper forum for the prosecution. View "United States v. Antonio" on Justia Law

Defendant-appellant Aaron Bowen appealed a district court’s dismissal of his motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. Bowen challenged his conviction for brandishing a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence, which rested on the trial court’s instruction that witness retaliation was a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(3). Given the narrowing of issues by the parties and developments in the law while this appeal was pending, resolution of this case called for the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeal to answer certain questions and leave others for another day. In short, the Court held that United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019), in which the Supreme Court held that section 924(c)(3)(B) was void for vagueness, created a new substantive rule that was retroactively applicable on collateral review, and Bowen’s convictions for witness retaliation did not qualify as crimes of violence under 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(3)(A). Therefore, the Court found Bowen was actually innocent of 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(1). The parties agreed in this case that, if Bowen was actually innocent, his 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion was timely. Because Bowen was entitled to relief under section 2255, the Court reversed the district court’s dismissal of Bowen’s section 2255 motion and remanded for the trial court to vacate his section 924(c)(1) conviction. View "United States v. Bowen" on Justia Law

In 2004, Appellant Marlon Harmon picked up a friend, Jasmine Battle, and asked her to go with him to rob a nearby convenience store. As they neared the Q & S convenience store at 26th Street and Independence in Oklahoma City, Harmon got out of the car and walked to that store while Battle drove around the block. Shortly, she heard three gunshots and saw that Harmon had blood on his hands when he came running back to her. A frightened Battle abandoned the car and left. She would later enter a plea agreement agreeing to cooperate with the State and testify against Harmon. The store clerk was shot and died in the hospital from his injury. Harmon would ultimately be convicted by jury of first degree murder and sentenced to death. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed his conviction and sentence on direct appeal and later denied two applications for post-conviction relief. Harmon then filed a petition for relief in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma under 28 U.S.C. 2254, which the district court denied. He appealed the district court’s denial of his petition to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, which affirmed the district court's denial of federal habeas relief. View "Harmon v. Sharp" on Justia Law

Defendant Markell Quashun Sweargin posted a sex video of the Victim after she attempted to no longer engage in prostitution; forced her to post provocative photos online; and beat her for refusing to have sex with a person who answered an advertisement on a prostitution-focused website. Defendant pleaded guilty to an Information charging him with knowingly transporting a person in interstate commerce from the State of Texas to the State of New Mexico with the intent that the person engage in prostitution in violation of New Mexico Statute 30-9-2 in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2421(a). In his presentence report, the probation officer recommended that the district court apply a four-level enhancement pursuant to Guideline 2G1.1(b)(1) because Defendant used fraud or coercion while promoting a commercial sex act. Defendant took issue with the meaning of “coercive” behavior in the context of United States Sentencing Guideline 2G1.1(b)(1). The Tenth Circuit was satisfied Defendant’s acts demonstrated he impressed his power over the Victim and the Victim knew she would face negative consequences for failing to succumb to Defendant’s pressure, therefore, Defendant did, in fact, coerce her. Accordingly, the Court affirmed sentence. View "United States v. Sweargin" on Justia Law

Lawrence Herring appealed the denial by the district court of his motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. 2255. In 2016, Herring pled guilty to one count of possession of child pornography pursuant to a plea agreement, which included a waiver of many of Herring’s appeal rights, except for his ability to appeal claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. In exchange for Herring’s guilty plea, the government agreed to recommend at sentencing a term of incarceration at the low end of the Sentencing Guideline range, which was 78-97 months. The district court sentenced Herring to sixty months’ imprisonment. At the sentencing hearing, the district court advised Judgment was entered in Herring’s case on May 5, 2016. That same day, Herring met with his trial counsel. In his section 2255 motion, Herring alleged that he told his attorney “specifically that he wanted to appeal his case,” although he conceded he did not explicitly command his attorney to file a notice of appeal. According to the motion, in response, Herring’s attorney said that “he did not do appellate work and that he would not be able to do it. . . . [Herring’s trial counsel] flatly stated [that Herring] had waived [his] right to appeal in the plea agreement and offered no further options other than to contact another attorney.” Furthermore, Herring alleged that his attorney never told him that “there was no merit to appealing his case” nor offered any other “advice regarding appealing” besides referring Herring to other attorneys. The Tenth Circuit granted a certificate of appealability to determine whether the district court erred in denying, without a hearing, Herring's claim that his trial counsel's failure to consult with him about an appeal constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. The Tenth Circuit concluded the district court abused its discretion under 28 U.S.C. 2255(b) by failing to hold an evidentiary hearing to resolve Herring’s section 2255 motion because the record did not “conclusively show” that Herring was entitled to no relief. View "United States v. Herring" on Justia Law

Roderick Smith was sentenced to death by an Oklahoma state jury for the 1993 murders of his wife and four stepchildren. In the pendency of his case, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002), prohibiting the execution of the intellectually disabled. Smith filed a successor application in state court for postconviction relief pursuant to Atkins, and the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (“OCCA”) remanded the case to the Oklahoma County District Court for a jury trial to determine whether Smith was intellectually disabled. At the subsequent jury trial in 2004 (the “Atkins trial”), the jury found Smith was not intellectually disabled and allowed his execution to move forward. But the Tenth Circuit then granted relief on Smith’s previously filed habeas corpus petition in Smith v. Mullin, 379 F.3d 919 (10th Cir. 2004), entitling him to resentencing. A jury found Smith competent to stand trial in 2009, and he was resentenced to death in 2010. Smith again sought federal habeas relief. The district court denied relief in an unpublished opinion. On appeal again to the Tenth Circuit, Smith argued multiple violations of his constitutional rights following the Atkins resentencing trials. With respect to the district court’s denial of habeas relief on Smith’s Atkins challenge to the constitutionality of his execution, the Tenth Circuit granted relief and did not address Smith’s remaining claims concerning his Atkins proceeding. The Court otherwise affirmed the district court’s denial of Smith’s 28 U.S.C. 2254 petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The case was remanded with instructions to grant a conditional writ vacating Smith’s death sentence and remanding to the State for a new penalty-phase proceeding. View "Smith v. Sharp" on Justia Law

In 2011, Elliott Williams was jailed at the Tulsa Oklahoma County Jail. Shortly after his booking, he severely injured his neck, causing lower body paralysis. No one treated his injury. Despite his frequent complaints of pain and paralysis, no one transported him to a hospital. He remained immobile for five days, lying on his back in various cells at the jail, and died of complications from the neck injury. The administrator of Mr. Williams’s estate, Robbie Emery Burke, filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging detention officers and medical providers at the jail violated Mr. Williams’s Fourteenth Amendment right by acting with deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. It further alleged Tulsa County Sheriff Stanley Glanz was liable in his individual supervisory capacity and in his official capacity for his subordinates’ violations. During pretrial litigation, Sheriff Glanz resigned and his successor, Sheriff Vic Regalado, was substituted as the defendant on the official-capacity claim. By the time of trial, Sheriffs Glanz and Regalado (“the Sheriffs”) were the only defendants remaining. A jury awarded Burke $10 million in compensatory damages against Sheriff Glanz and Sheriff Regalado and $250,000 in punitive damages against Sheriff Glanz in his individual supervisory capacity. On appeal, the Sheriffs challenged the verdict, various evidentiary rulings, and several pre- and post-trial decisions of the district court. After careful consideration of all issues raised, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court on all grounds except for its denial of the Sheriffs’ motion for a setoff. The Court reversed and remanded for further consideration of that issue. View "Burke v. Regalado" on Justia Law