Justia U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Articles Posted in Criminal Law
by
The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentences for illegal reentry into the United States and violating a condition of his supervised release. The court held that, although the district court committed a clear or obvious error in determining that it was required to run defendant's sentences consecutively, the error did not rise to the level of a grave injustice nor did it seriously affect the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. View "United States v. Flores" on Justia Law

Posted in: Criminal Law
by
The Fifth Circuit vacated defendant's sentence after he pleaded guilty to being found unlawfully present in the United States. Defendant objected to the recommendation that his prior convictions be categorized as aggravated felonies based on the definition of a crime of violence. The court held that United States v. Gonzalez-Longoria, 831 F.3d 670 (5th Cir. 2016) (en banc), foreclosed defendant's argument. Gonzalez-Longeria held that defendant's prior convictions were not unconstitutionally vague in light of Johnson v. United States. Accordingly, the court remanded for resentencing with instructions. View "United States v. Isidro-Esteban" on Justia Law

Posted in: Criminal Law
by
The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentences for illegal reentry and violation of the terms of his supervised release. The court held that the district court erred by failing to provide defendant an allocution opportunity, but the error did not affect defendant's substantial rights. In this case, defendant had ample opportunity, either before or during the sentencing hearing, to move for a downward departure or variance, or for a different Guidelines calculation. View "United States v. Montoya-De La Cruz" on Justia Law

Posted in: Criminal Law
by
The Fifth Circuit vacated and remanded defendant's 41 month sentence for illegal reentry after deportation. The court held that the district court plainly erred by imposing a 16-level "crime of violence" enhancement based on defendant's prior Virginia convictions for statutory burglary. In light of Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016), Virginia Code Section 18.2-90 is an indivisible statute that sweeps broader than generic "burglary of a dwelling." View "United States v. Reyes-Ochoa" on Justia Law

Posted in: Criminal Law
by
The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's convictions and sentences for conspiracy to import and importation of methamphetamine. The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support defendant's convictions, and the district court did not clearly err by imposing a two-level sentencing enhancement for obstruction of justice. View "United States v. Zamora-Salazar" on Justia Law

Posted in: Criminal Law
by
Plaintiffs Brewer and Brooks filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that defendants, forensic consultants, violated their constitutional rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments when, as retained government experts, they provided investigators with—and later testified to—baseless findings, and that they knew that the evidence was baseless or at least acted with reckless disregard of that reality. The Fifth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for defendants and held that defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because they were engaged in the criminal investigative functions of the state protected at common law, and plaintiffs failed to raise a genuine issue of fact as to whether defendants violated their right to due process by intentionally creating false or misleading scientific evidence. View "Brewer v. Hayne" on Justia Law

Posted in: Criminal Law
by
The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of habeas relief on petitioner's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel (IATC). The court held that, assuming counsel's performance was deficient, petitioner failed to show that he was prejudiced by the mitigation investigation of his trial counsel and therefore his IATC claim failed. View "Trevino v. Davis" on Justia Law

by
After the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals held that plaintiff was "actually innocent" of assault on a public servant in Texas court, he filed suit against the City and law enforcement officers under 42 U.S.C. 1983. Plaintiff alleged a Brady claim against the City and the district court granted summary judgment in his favor. The Fifth Circuit reversed and dismissed the action with prejudice, holding that plaintiff's guilty plea precludes him from asserting a Brady claim under section 1983. View "Alvarez v. City of Brownsville" on Justia Law

by
Defendant appealed his conviction for conspiracy to commit money laundering. The Fifth Circuit remanded for further findings on the Brady and Giglio claim, holding that the district court clearly erred in concluding that the FBI Forms 302 (official interview memoranda) were not favorable. The court did not reach defendant's challenge to the forfeiture order, and otherwise rejected defendant's arguments. View "United States v. Colorado Cessa" on Justia Law

Posted in: Criminal Law
by
Petitioner was convicted of murder and sentenced to death. The Fifth Circuit granted a certificate of appealability on two issues: (1) a Mills claim that the omission of a jury instruction—required under Texas law—that jurors need not agree on what particular evidence they found mitigating created a substantial risk that the jurors may have mistakenly believed mitigating evidence needed to be accepted unanimously and (2) that petitioner's trial counsel's failure to object to the missing instruction constituted ineffective assistance of counsel under Strickland v. Washington. In regard to the Mills claim, the court held that, given the record, there did not exist a reasonable likelihood or substantial probability that reasonable jurors may have thought they were precluded from considering any mitigating evidence unless all 12 jurors agreed on the existence of a particular such circumstances. Therefore, the state courts did not unreasonably apply Mills. Assuming arguendo that failing to object to the absent jury instruction was deficient performance, defendant failed to show prejudice. Accordingly, the Texas state courts' application of Strickland to defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claims was not unreasonable. The court affirmed the denial of habeas relief. View "Young v. Davis" on Justia Law