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

Defendant Michael Allen Browning was convicted by jury for the murder of Harry and Teresa Hye, the parents of his girlfriend Cenessa Tackett. Browning received a death sentence as punishment for these crimes. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed this conviction and sentence on direct appeal and denied post-conviction relief. What the jury (and defense attorneys) did not know was that Tackett, who became the most important witness at trial, had been diagnosed with a severe mental disorder. According to records from her psychiatrist that were in the State's possession, Tackett blurred reality and fantasy, suffered from memory deficits, tended to project blame onto others, and had an assaultive, combative, and even potentially homicidal disposition. In subsequent proceedings, the contents of Tackett's mental health records came to light, prompting the federal district court to grant a conditional writ of habeas corpus. The court reasoned that Tackett's mental health records were favorable to Browning and material to his defense, especially considering Browning's trial strategy to paint Tackett herself as complicit in the murders. The district court therefore ruled that the Constitution obligated the State to disclose those records to Browning before trial. Given the central role Tackett played at trial and the severity of her mental health diagnosis, the Tenth Circuit agreed with the district court that the psychiatric information was favorable to Browning and material to his defense, and that the Oklahoma courts could not have reasonably concluded otherwise. View "Browning v. Trammell" on Justia Law

The Government filed an interlocutory appeal in an action brought against Defendants Kelly Armstrong, Debbie Cantrup, Richard Cook, Shirley Cook and Copar Pumice Company, Inc. for trespass, conversion, and unjust enrichment. The claims were based on allegations that the Cooks and Copar removed and used undersized pumice from their mine in violation of their settlement agreement with the United States, the Jemez National Recreation Area Act ("JNRAA"), and other applicable regulations. Although the case was pending in district court, the Cooks and Copar filed an interlocutory appeal from discovery orders requiring their former and present law firms to produce documents containing legal advice counsel gave to them regarding the legality of mining, transporting, processing, and marketing pumice from their mine. Specifically, the Cooks and Copar appealed the denial of their motion for protective order and their motion to quash subpoenas, contending that the Tenth Circuit had appellate jurisdiction under the collateral order, "Perlman," and "pragmatic finality" doctrines. The United States filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Finding that jurisdiction did not arise under any of the cited doctrines, the Tenth Circuit granted the Government's motion to dismiss. View "United States v. Copar Pumice Company, et al" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Adrian Luna-Acosta appealed a district court's judgment sentencing him to thirty-three months' imprisonment, filed five months after the court orally announced a sentence of twelve months. On appeal to the Tenth Circuit, Defendant argued that the district court lacked jurisdiction to modify the twelve-month sentence. Agreeing with Defendant's argument, the Tenth Circuit reversed the district court and remanded the case for resentencing based on the orally-announced sentence. View "United States v. Luna-Acosta" on Justia Law

Appellants sought reversal of a district court order that denied their motion to dismiss claims asserted against them by Plaintiff-Appellee Michael Wilson, Sr. under 42 U.S.C. 1983. Wilson alleged he was unlawfully detained and deprived of his constitutional right to a prompt and probable cause determination. Appellants, all of whom worked as wardens, deputy sherifs, police officers, police chiefs and a booking officer, claimed that they were entitled to qualified immunity. The district court concluded that Wilson's complaint alleged sufficient facts to state a plausible claim against each appellant for violating his Fourth Amendment rights. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit concluded that the district court erred in denying the motion to dismiss against Appellant Deputy Fred Torres; and that the district court correctly denied the motion to dismiss as to appellants Deputy Lawrence Montanto, former sheriff Rene Rivera, and Warden Joe Chavez. The case was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Wilson v. Montano, et al" on Justia Law

In 2001, Defendant Damaris Rawlins was prosecuted in Kansas state court for battery of a police officer. The Kansas court sentenced Rawlins to three years' probation. Even while not facing jail time, Rawlins timely challenged her conviction in the Kansas courts both through direct appeals and through Kansas’s collateral review system, arguing certain constitutional errors tainted her conviction. Those state-court proceedings lasted for an unusually long period of time, finally concluding with a denial of relief in 2011. Rawlins continued to believe that her state conviction resulted from constitutional errors. If Rawlins had still been in state custody (including probation) at the conclusion of her collateral review proceedings, she could have continued to press those arguments in federal court through a 28 U.S.C. 2254 petition. Having long since completed her probation sentence, however, she no longer met section 2254's "in custody" requirement. Rawlins therefore petitioned the District of Kansas for a writ of audita querela or in the alternative a writ of coram vobis. The district court assumed that if any writ was appropriate, it was a writ of audita querela. It did not reach the propriety of a writ of coram vobis. The district court then examined Rawlins’s constitutional arguments as if brought under a section 2254 petition and concluded that Rawlins merited no relief. The court therefore denied her petition for a writ of audita querela and entered judgment accordingly. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit concluded that the most analogous writ in these circumstances was the writ of coram nobis, not audita querela. "Federal courts, however, have no power to examine a state-court judgment under the writ of coram nobis. Accordingly, no procedure exists by which we can review Rawlins's state-court conviction under these circumstances." The Court therefore vacated the district court's judgment and remanded with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. View "Rawlins v. Kansas" on Justia Law

Nepalese native and citizen petitioner Narendra Raj Karki petitioned the Tenth Circuit to review a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision affirming an order of an immigration judge (IJ) that denied his application for asylum and restriction on removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and protection under the United Nations Convention Against Torture (CAT). Petitioner entered the United States in 2007 in order to present a paper at a forestry conference in Oregon. His visitor's visa authorized him to remain in the country for approximately one month. A few days after the visa expired, Petitioner filed an asylum application, which was denied by an asylum officer and referred to an immigration judge. Removal proceedings were initiated against him in early 2008. At the removal proceedings, Petitioner renewed his application for asylum and sought restriction on removal under the INA and protection under the CAT, claiming that he had suffered past persecution and feared future persecution based on his political opinion and membership in a particular social group. The IJ concluded that Petitioner had failed to establish a nexus between his alleged fear of persecution and a statutorily protected ground. On appeal, the BIA affirmed the IJ's conclusion that the incidents described by Petitioner did not rise to the level of past persecution thus concluding that Petitioner was not eligible for asylum or restriction on removal because he had not shown past persecution or a fear of future persecution based on his political opinion. Furthermore, the BIA concluded that Petitioner was not eligible for relief under the CAT because he had not shown that the government of Nepal was likely to torture him or acquiesce in his torture if he returned. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit concluded that the record as a whole did not support the BIA's conclusion that Petitioner failed to show that public officials in Nepal would likely acquiesce in his torture by Maoists if he returned to Nepal. Accordingly, the Court granted the petition for review as to Petitioner's CAT claim. The Court noted that there was no agency factfinding on the likelihood that Petitioner will be tortured if he returned to Nepal, and on remand the agency could consider whether Petitioner had shown a sufficient likelihood of torture to be entitled to CAT relief. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Karki v. Holder" on Justia Law

A jury convicted Defendant Dewey MacKay, III of unlawfully prescribing controlled substances. He challenged the sufficiency of the evidence underlying several counts of his conviction. He also challeged certain jury instructions, admission of an exhibit and expert testimony, and the legality of his sentence. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit found that Defendant's judgment was unclear whether the district court intended to impose a 240-month sentence on each count ("a clearly illegal sentence"). The Court remanded the case for the limited purpose of clarifying Defendant's sentence. Otherwise, the Court affirmed the district court in all other respects. View "United States v. MacKay" on Justia Law

In 2008, a jury found Defendant Marlo Toombs guilty on seven counts of drug and firearm felony offenses. On appeal, the Tenth Circuit reversed and remanded his case for violations of the Speedy Trial Act. After the district court dismissed Defendant's indictment without prejudice, the government filed a new indictment and a jury subsequently found Defendant guilty of six charges. On appeal, Defendant contended that the district court abused its discretion by admitting the entirety of his testimony from the first trial into evidence at his second trial and by dismissing his first indictment without prejudice. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit concluded that the district court erred in admitting Defendant's testimony without first ruling on discrete admissibility objections under the Federal Rules of Evidence. However, in the context of the entire record, the Court found the error was harmless. Furthermore, the Court concluded that the dismissal without prejudice was not an abuse of discretion. View "United States v. Toombs" on Justia Law

Federal inmate Petitioner-Appellant Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri appealed a district court’s judgment that denied his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Appellant was serving a 100-month federal sentence for conspiracy to provide material support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization (al-Qaeda). He contended that he was entitled to Good Conduct Time (GCT) for the 71 months he was held as a material witness and an enemy combatant. The Bureau of Prisons (BOP) and the district court did not agree. On appeal to the Tenth Circuit, appellant claimed that he was entitled to a GCT calculation under 18 U.S.C. 3624(b), or as an equitable remedy for his allegedly unconstitutional detention. Finding no error in the district court's decision, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of relief. View "Al-Marri v. Davis" on Justia Law

Pro se petitioner Lucio Salgado-Toribio sought review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. Petitioner had been using the federal courts' procedures to put off removal for more than three years since an immigration judge found him removable. This appeal was his third time seeking the Tenth Circuit's review of an administrative decision over which the Court found it had no jurisdiction. "Enough is enough. We deny Petitioner's motion to proceed in forma pauperis, dismiss the petition for review, and recommend that the Department of Homeland Security enforce the order of removal immediately." View "Salgado-Toribio v. Holder" on Justia Law