Case Summaries

Criminal Law & Procedure

[02/03] US v. Mahin
In a prosecution on two counts of possessing a firearm or ammunition while subject to a domestic violence protective order in violation of 18 USC section 922(g)(8), the judgment of conviction is: 1) affirmed in part, where the statute and its application to the defendant's firearm use the same day he was served with a protective order did not violate the Second Amendment under the intermediate scrutiny standard; and 2) reversed in part and remanded for resentencing, where it was plain error to convict and sentence the defendant on two separate counts for the simultaneous possession of a firearm and ammunition under section 922(g)(8).

[02/03] US v. Culbertson
In a prosecution in which the defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of conspiracy to import 100 grams or more of heroin and five kilograms or more of cocaine, the case is remanded to the district court with instructions to vacate the judgment of conviction, where: 1) there was an inadequate factual basis for the defendant's guilty plea with respect to the quantity of drugs for which he was responsible; and 2) the district court's error in accepting the defendant's plea was not harmless.

[02/03] US v. Leahy
In a sentencing challenge brought by a defendant convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm, the district court's 10-year sentence is affirmed, where: 1) the district court's application of enhancements under the sentencing guidelines and its inclusion of criminal history points was procedurally reasonable; and 2) the sentence, although the maximum possible, was substantively reasonable, as the district court articulated a plausible sentencing rationale and imposed a sentence within the range of reasonable outcomes.

[02/02] US v. Rivera-Santana
In a sentencing challenge after the appellant was convicted of illegal reentry into the United States after being removed for a conviction of an aggravated felony, the sentencing court's judgment order is affirmed, where: 1) two upward departures in the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range, augmented by an upward variance of 90 months therefrom, were not procedurally unreasonable; and 2) the resulting sentence, which was the statutory maximum, was not substantively unreasonable.

[02/02] People v. Brents
In a prosecution for first-degree murder and other crimes which resulted in a conviction and death sentence, the judgment is reversed as to the sentence of death, and the jury's true finding on the kidnapping special circumstance allegation is stricken, where the jury was not properly instructed regarding the need to find an independent felonious purpose to kidnap the victim, but the convictions are otherwise upheld where: 1) hearsay statements were admissible under Evidence Code section 791(b) as prior consistent statements; 2) there was no abuse of discretion in the admission of a photograph of the victim's body; 3) the trial court did not violate Penal Code section 654's prohibition against multiple sentences for a single act or course of conduct by imposing a death sentence for the murder conviction and a consecutive 25-years-to-life term for the felony assault conviction; and 4) the trial court did not make multiple errors, so that the defendant's claim of cumulative prejudice necessarily failed.

[02/02] People v. Elliott
On appeal of the death sentence after conviction for crimes including first-degree murder with the special circumstance of murder during the commission of a robbery, the sentence is affirmed against numerous and various challenges on issues relating to: 1) pretrial procedures and jury selection; 2) the defendant's guilt; 3) the penalty imposed; and 4) the adequacy of the appellate record.

[02/01] US v. Noriega-Perez
In a prosecution of a property owner stemming from his renting houses he owned near the United States-Mexico border to an alien smuggling organization knowing that they would be used as load houses to conceal and later transfer recently arrived aliens, the convictions are affirmed, where: 1) the strong circumstantial evidence presented at trial sufficed for the jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that non-testifying material witnesses were illegal aliens; 2) a reasonable jury could find sufficient specific evidence linking the defendant to intentionally aiding the cross-border transportation of the named material witnesses before they were dropped off in the United States.

[02/01] Phan v. Holder
In a case in which USCIS denied an application for naturalization on the grounds that the applicant could not show good moral character because he was convicted of an aggravated felony, the district court's grant of summary judgment is affirmed, where: 1) on its face, the appellant's conviction satisfied the statutory requirements for a "conviction" of an aggravated felony; 2) although a court set aside the conviction, it acted pursuant to rehabilitative goals, which do not control the use of the conviction in the immigration context.

[02/01] US v. Lyttle
In a prosecution for numerous offenses relating to the defendant's involvement in a fraudulent high-yield investment program, before which the district court had granted a government application to suspend the statute of limitations pursuant to 18 USC section 3292 while the government sought the assistance of the Hungarian government in recovering records relating to transfers of the scheme’s proceeds into Hungarian bank accounts, the district court's denial of a motion to dismiss the indictment on statute of limitations grounds is affirmed, where: 1) the evidence was sufficient to support the district court’s order; 2) section 3292 does not require that the foreign evidence sought be necessary for an indictment, nor that it be obtainable only through an official request to a foreign government; and 3) district courts may rely on ex parte proceedings when deciding to issue section 3292 orders.

[01/31] US v. Cain
In a prosecution of three individuals for racketeering and various related offenses, one defendant's RICO and RICO conspiracy convictions are reversed and all other convictions are affirmed where: 1) the district court’s RICO instruction was legally erroneous, and prejudicial with regard to one defendant; 2) there were several errors in the calculation of the sentencing guidelines applicable to that defendant that needed to be corrected on remand; and 3) the defendant was not denied his constitutional right to counsel of his choice when his retained attorney was disqualified by the magistrate judge overseeing pretrial proceedings.

[01/31] Cuevas v. Grondolsky
In a suit seeking habeas corpus relief under 28 USC section 2241 for alleged violations of the extradition treaty under which the prisoner was brought to the United States, the government's motion for summary disposition is allowed and the district court's judgment denying relief is affirmed, where: 1) the petitioner had twice sought habeas relief under 28 USC section 2255, without success; and 2) the petitioner could not circumvent the limits on multiple section 2255 petitions by resorting to section 2241 to assert a treaty claim that could as easily have been advanced in his original section 2255 petition.

[01/30] US v. Casasola
In a prosecution of a Guatemalan citizen for illegal reentry into the United States after removal, the district court's denial of a motion to dismiss the criminal information is affirmed, and the sentence is affirmed, where: 1) the defendant did not obtain derivative citizenship when his father was naturalized before the defendant turned eighteen but his mother, still married to the father, was not; 2) the statute as it existed at the relevant time did not deny equal protection, because it did not permit automatic derivative citizenship when one parent having joint custody was naturalized, but rather required the custodial parent, upon naturalization, to have sole legal custody; and 3) a sentencing guideline amendment that deleted the criminal history "recency" points used to calculate the defendant's criminal history category was not retroactive, and the sentence was neither substantively nor procedurally unreasonable.

[01/30] People v. Cravens
In a prosecution that resulted in a conviction for second-degree murder, the Court of Appeal's reduction of the conviction to voluntary manslaughter is reversed, where there was sufficient evidence to satisfy both the physical and the mental components of implied malice.

[01/30] People v. Johnson
On appeal of a judgment of conviction entered after the trial court revoked the defendant's self-representation status on mental competency grounds, the judgment of the Court of Appeal affirming the conviction is affirmed, as: 1) California courts may deny self-representation when the United States Constitution permits such denial; and 2) the trial court acted within its discretion in revoking the defendant‘s self-representation status.

[01/30] People v. Indiana Lumbermens Mutual Insurance Co.
On a surety's appeal of an order denying its motion to vacate the forfeiture of a bond and to exonerate bail, the trial court's order denying the surety's motion is affirmed, where consolidation of cases that led to the inclusion of a robbery count filed in one case with the charges filed in the case in which the surety had posted bail did not materially alter the surety's risk and did not exonerate the bond.

[01/30] Prudencio v. Holder
In removal proceedings against a lawful permanent resident who was convicted of contributing to the delinquency of a minor in violation of Virginia Code section 18.2-371, a misdemeanor, the petition for review of a BIA decision dismissing an appeal from an immigration judge's decision is granted and the immigration judge's order of removal is vacated, where: 1) the Attorney General's approach to determining whether a conviction is for a crime involving moral turpitude, set forth in Matter of Silva-Trevino, 24 I&N Dec. 687 (A.G. 2008), is not an authorized exercise of the Attorney General's authority under Chevron; and 2) under the categorical and modified categorical approaches, DHS did not satisfy its burden of showing that the conviction qualified as a crime involving moral turpitude.

More...