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

Defendant Dustin Ash pled guilty to two counts of being a felon in possession of a firearm. His Presentence Investigation Report (“PSR”) identified a 2012 Kansas conviction for reckless aggravated battery as a “crime of violence” under U.S.S.G. 4B1.2(a). Concluding that Ash had one such prior conviction, the PSR set his base offense level at 20 pursuant to section 2K2.1(a)(4)(A). After making several adjustments, the PSR indicated Ash’s total offense level was 23. Paired with a criminal history category of V, the PSR determined his Guidelines range was 84 to 105 months’ imprisonment. In a cross-appeal, the parties challenged two district court rulings that considered whether certain offenses were crimes of violence under U.S.S.G. 4B1.2(a). The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals determined : (1) the U.S. Supreme Court recently determined that robbery qualified as a crime of violence if the offense required the perpetrator to overcome victim resistance; and (2) offenses with a mens rea of recklessness cannot qualify as crimes of violence. The Court thus held that Dustin Ash’s Missouri conviction for second-degree robbery was a crime of violence, and his Kansas conviction for reckless aggravated battery was also a crime of violence. Because Ash had two prior convictions for crimes of violence under the Guidelines, the district court miscalculated his advisory Guidelines range. The Tenth Circuit then remanded this case and instructed the district court to vacate Ash’s sentence and resentence him consistent with its opinion. View "United States v. Ash" on Justia Law

In 2014, a federal grand jury indicted Delano Medina. He appeared for the first time in federal court 27 months later on January 11, 2017. During that time, Medina was transferred between various state authorities in three different states on at least 10 different sets of charges and was tried in two different state courts. He moved to dismiss the federal indictment, arguing that the delay violated his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial. He contended that the pretrial delay impaired his defense because his cell phone containing alibi evidence was lost before he was brought to federal court. He also argued the delay prevented him from invoking his rights under the Speedy Trial Act at an earlier date. The district court denied the motion because Medina had not adequately shown he suffered prejudice from the delay. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "United States v. Medina" on Justia Law

This appeal stemmed from a search, which took place after the police spoke with defendant Desmond Gaines. After a brief exchange, Gaines fled but was soon captured. The police then found cocaine, marijuana, PCP, drug paraphernalia, over $640, and a handgun. Gaines unsuccessfully moved to suppress this evidence, and he appealed denial of his suppression motion. Presented for the Tenth Circuit's review were issues of whether: (1) Gaines was seized by police; and (2) were his Fourth Amendment rights violated. After careful consideration of the facts presented at trial, the Tenth Circuit determined: (1) no, Gaines was not seized; and (2) the development of probable cause or the subsequent discovery of the arrest warrant did not attenuate the connection between the seizure and the drug/money evidence. The Court vacated the denial of Gaines’s motion to suppress. View "United States v. Gaines" on Justia Law

Defendant Ian Alexander Bowline was convicted by a jury on a number of charges involving unlawful prescriptions for oxycodone. He appealed his conviction, raising only one issue: whether the district court properly denied his untimely pretrial motion to dismiss his indictment on the ground of vindictive prosecution. The district court ruled: (1) he was procedurally barred because he had not shown good cause under Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(c)(3) to excuse his untimeliness; and (2) on the merits, he had not demonstrated that he was being subjected to a vindictive prosecution. After review, the Tenth Circuit Court of appeals affirmed, finding Defendant was not entitled to relief on appeal absent a showing of good cause to excuse the untimeliness of his motion. The Court therefore did not reach the merits of his vindictive-prosecution claim. View "United States v. Bowline" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Stacy Knapp entered a conditional plea of guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, for which she was sentenced to 36 months’ imprisonment and three years’ supervised release. The conditional plea allowed her to appeal the district court’s denial of her motion to suppress, and in the event it was successful, to withdraw her guilty plea. The validity of Knapp’s arrest was not at issue; this appeal turned on: (1) whether the search of her purse was one of her person for the purposes of Robinson; and (2) if the search was not of her person, whether the search was nevertheless justified because it was within “the area from within which [she] might [have] gain[ed] possession of a weapon or destructible evidence.” Knapp presented two arguments why the search of her purse was not one “of her person” at the time of her arrest: (1) the government was wrong on the facts because she was not carrying her purse when she was told she was under arrest, rather, it was sitting somewhere within the truck, and she had to “collect” it from the truck to bring it into the store; and (2) the district court did not make a specific factual finding comparing the exact time of the arrest with when Knapp grabbed her purse - It simply noted, “[Knapp] brought her purse with her into the grocery store.” The Tenth Circuit reversed and remanded, finding the search of Knapp’s purse was not one of her person for the purposes of United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218, 234 (1973), and because the search of her purse was not actually supported by the Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, 763 (1969) justifications, the exception for a search incident to arrest did not apply here. View "United States v. Knapp" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellee Gregory Orozco was convicted by a jury of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine (count 1), and possession with intent to distribute five grams or more of methamphetamine (count 2). Orozco moved for a new trial, alleging the government violated his Sixth Amendment right by interfering with his right to call a witness on his behalf. The district court granted the motion, vacated the two convictions, and dismissed the underlying counts of the superseding indictment. The government appealed, challenging the district court’s finding of prosecutorial misconduct and the remedy imposed. The Tenth Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. On remand, the district court was ordered to vacate its dismissal of the underlying counts of the superseding indictment to allow for retrial. View "United States v. Orozco" on Justia Law

This case was brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983, challenging the constitutionality of New Mexico’s system of bail. Plaintiffs-Appellants Darlene Collins, the Bail Bond Association of New Mexico (“BBANM”), and five New Mexico state legislators (the “Legislator Plaintiffs”) alleged New Mexico’s system of bail violated the Excessive Bail Clause of the Eighth Amendment, as well as the procedural and substantive components of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Plaintiffs further alleged the rules governing New Mexico’s system of bail were promulgated by the New Mexico Supreme Court in violation of the New Mexico Constitution. Defendants-Appellees were the New Mexico Supreme Court and its justices; the Second Judicial District Court of New Mexico, its chief judge, and its court executive officer; and the Bernalillo County Metropolitan Court, its chief judge, and its court executive officer. They moved to dismiss, arguing that Plaintiffs lacked standing, Defendants were immune from suit, and Plaintiffs failed to state a claim. Defendants also moved for Rule 11 sanctions on the basis that Plaintiffs’ attorneys filed suit without adequately researching the viability of Plaintiffs’ claims. Plaintiffs moved for leave to amend their complaint to add a claim that Defendants’ Rule 11 motion violated Plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights. The district court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss because it found that BBANM and the Legislator Plaintiffs lacked standing, Defendants were immune from suit, and Plaintiffs failed to state a claim. The district court also granted Defendants’ motion for sanctions and denied Plaintiffs’ motion to amend. Plaintiffs timely appealed, but finding no reversible error in the district court's judgment, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "Collins v. Daniels" on Justia Law

Carlos Cuesta-Rodriguez challenges his Oklahoma conviction for first-degree murder and his accompanying sentence of death. The victim, Olimpia Fisher, and her adult daughter, Katya Chacon, lived with Cuesta-Rodriguez in a home Fisher and Cuesta-Rodriguez had purchased together. In the year following the home purchase, Cuesta-Rodriguez and Fisher’s relationship was strained. Cuesta- Rodriguez feared Fisher was cheating on him. Whenever Fisher and Chacon would leave the house, Cuesta-Rodriguez would question them “about where they were going and what they would be doing.” The relationship deteriorated to the point that both Cuesta-Rodriguez and Fisher wanted the other to move out. An argument between the two ended when Cuesta-Rodriquez shot Fisher in both eyes. The district court denied relief and denied a certificate of appealability (COA). The Tenth Circuit concluded Cuesta-Rodriguez was not persuasive in his argument that combined errors led to a trial that wasn’t “fundamentally fair.” As such, the Court affirmed the district court's judgment that Cuesta-Rodriquez was not entitled to relief. View "Cuesta-Rodriguez v. Carpenter" on Justia Law

Petitioner Christopher Hobdy, a Colorado state prisoner serving time for first degree assault and aggravated robbery, filed an application for federal habeas relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254. The criminal charges against Hobdy arose from an assault on the victim Jerry Williams outside a convenience store in 1997. The victim was a police officer with the City of Aurora, Colorado, who had a terminal illness and was living in a hospice at the time of the assault. Williams left to make a purchase at a nearby convenience store early in the morning; as he walked back to the hospice, Hobdy stuck the victim with a shovel. The victim fell to the ground, and his possessions fell out of his pocket. Hobdy picked the items up and ran away. Police located Hobdy and identified him from photographs taken from the store's surveillance camera. Hobdy's main argument at trial was that because of medicines the victim took to treat his terminal illness, his identification of Hobdy from the convenience store and surveillance photos was legally insufficient. The victim died months after the incident, and approximately 8 months prior to trial. In his post-conviction appeals, Hobdy argued he received insufficient assistance of trial and appellate counsel for a variety of reasons, centering primarily on mishandling of testimony and trial procedure, and for failing to preserve certain issues related to the jury's deadlock notes. The district court granted Hobdy’s 2254 application and ordered the State of Colorado to retry him within ninety days. Respondents Rick Raemisch, the Executive Director of the Colorado Department of Corrections, and Phil Weiser, the Attorney General for the State of Colorado, appealed the district court’s decision. The Tenth Circuit concluded Hobdy's principal arguments for habeas relief were procedurally barred and could not serve as the basis for relief. The Court therefore reversed the district court, remanded the case with directions to enter judgment in favor of respondents. View "Hobdy v. Raemisch" on Justia Law

In 2014, CNB auditors conducted a surprise audit of the Burlington, Kansas Central National Bank (“CNB” or “Bank”) vault. The vault was missing $764,000. When they began to suspect defendant Denise Christy, she forged documents to purport that she had sent the missing cash to the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (“FRB”). A grand jury indicted her on one count of bank embezzlement, six counts of making false bank entries, six counts of failing to report income on her taxes, and 10 counts of money laundering. After a six-day trial, a jury found Christy guilty of all charges except four money laundering counts. On appeal, Christy argued: (1) cumulative prosecutorial misconduct violated her due process rights; (2) the evidence was insufficient for her money laundering convictions; and (3) the jury instructions improperly omitted a “materiality” element for the false-bank-entry charges. The Tenth Circuit: (1) rejected Christy’s prosecutorial misconduct challenge because she has not shown the prosecutor’s comments influenced the jury’s verdict; (2) reversed Christy’s money laundering convictions because the Government did not produce sufficient evidence of the intent to file a false tax return; and (3) affirmed Christy’s false-bank-entry convictions because, even assuming materiality was an implied element of 18 U.S.C. 1005, its omission from the jury instruction was harmless error. The matter was remanded to the district court with instructions to vacate the convictions for money laundering, resentence the defendant, and further proceedings. View "United States v. Christy" on Justia Law