Under both state and federal law, a state deferred adjudication for this type of crime qualifies as a valid predicate conviction for sentencing purposes.
An indictment that omits this element of the offense does not offend Due Process, since Apprendi and its progeny specifically except prior convictions.
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/17/17-10082-CR0.pdf
Since 2011. An occasional commonplacing of the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal.
Neither an authoritative statement of the law nor legal advice. Quick work.
Showing posts with label Due Process. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Due Process. Show all posts
First Circuit: Caraballo-Caraballo v. Administracion de Correccion
When a superseding indictment adds charges arising out the same act, transaction or common scheme, the Sixth Amendment speedy trial clock for the added charges still runs from the initial indictment.
The protections of the Sixth Amendment are generically distinct from Due Process and double jeopardy, and differ from the statutory protections offered under the Speedy Trial Act; the protection therefore arises directly from the Sixth Amendment.
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/17-1961P-01A.pdf
The protections of the Sixth Amendment are generically distinct from Due Process and double jeopardy, and differ from the statutory protections offered under the Speedy Trial Act; the protection therefore arises directly from the Sixth Amendment.
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/17-1961P-01A.pdf
First Circuit: Rodriguez-Miranda v. Benin
FRCP, Due Process
Post-judgment motion to join defts for purposes of enforcing the judgment did not have to mention the specific FRCP rule, as the motion was made with sufficient particularity to afford notice.
Defts can be joined after entry of judgment -- the matter remains a pending one.
No plain error in holding newly joined defts jointly and severally liable for full judgment, as the court held them to be alter egos, not successors in (perhaps partial) interest.
Notice and opportunity to challenge sufficed for personal jurisdiction.
Court's imposition of contempt fines was civil, not criminal, as it was attempting to enforce compliance,and was therefore procedurally sufficient.
Rodriguez-Miranda v. Benin
Eighth Circuit: Debra Jenner v. Kay Nikolas
S1983, Due Process
As the state statutory right to a parole hearing isn't protected by a liberty interest under the Federal Constitution, allegations of unfair process cannot be raised under S1983.
Debra Jenner v. Kay Nikolas
Seventh Circuit: Jeffrey D. Cochran v. Illinois State Toll Highway
S1983, Tolls, Due Process
Notice and hearing provisions for state highway toll system do not violate Due Process.
Rational basis for providing transponder owners an extra grace period for the payment of tolls.
Jeffrey D. Cochran v. Illinois State Toll Highway
Sixth Circuit: Altin Shuti v. Loretta Lynch
Immigration, Statutory Interpretation, Due Process
Immigration provision paralleling the ACCA residual clause is similarly void for vagueness.
Altin Shuti v. Loretta Lynch
Eighth Circuit: United States v. Austin DeCoster
Cruel & Unusual, Due Process, Sentencing
Corporate liability is not vicarious liability, since there is direct control of the instrumentalities of the crime. Custodial sentence therefore does not offend Due Process.
No clear error in findings of fact relating to sentencing,
Past offenses of the corporate entity appropriately considered during sentencing, given defts' control of the company.
Concur - Defts' negligence in running the business allows custodial sentence.
Dissent - No, it doesn't.
United States v. Austin DeCoster
Eighth Circuit: United States v. Walter Combs
Crim, Entrapment
Presenting opportunity to rob a drug operation was insufficient entrapment under Due Process, no entrapment instruction justified for the narcotics crime, given eagerness to do the job.
United States v. Walter Combs
First Circuit: Sullivan v. Marchilli
Souter, Habeas, Crim
State court did not unreasonably apply federal law on the issue, as the allegedly vague prohibition is found in the federal caselaw as well.
Due Process argument that the court would not have determined the image to fall within the statute if the proper First Amendment limits had been followed is irrelevant, since the state appellate review did not unreasonably apply the governing law.
Sullivan v. Marchilli
State court did not unreasonably apply federal law on the issue, as the allegedly vague prohibition is found in the federal caselaw as well.
Due Process argument that the court would not have determined the image to fall within the statute if the proper First Amendment limits had been followed is irrelevant, since the state appellate review did not unreasonably apply the governing law.
Sullivan v. Marchilli
Seventh Circuit: Noah Dietchweiler v. Steve Lucas
Due Process
Per curiam -- Due process satisfied for high school suspension where there was notice of the general allegation and a chance to be heard, despite lack of date-specific accusation of drug use.
Concurrence (2) -- troublingly unspecific notice.
Noah Dietchweiler v. Steve Lucas
Third Circuit: USA v. Ralph Dennis
Entrapment
Although the government's actions considered individually would not justify the entrapment instruction, where the investigation goes beyond providing the simple menas for committing the crime, their actions should be considered cumulatively.
Past narcotics convictions can establish separate predisposition for those counts.
OUtrageous prosecution requires conduct substantially beyond entrapment.
USA v. Ralph Dennis
Tenth Circuit: United States v. Willis
FRE, Due Process, Miranda
No error in introduction of prior bad acts where the conduct was similar and spoke to the specific question in the present case.
Where tribal law required juvenile records to be expunged, and, contrary to that law, the records are later transmitted to another jurisdiction for use in a criminal case, there is no Due Process violation in the second forum.
Where deft invokes right to counsel, subsequent administrative questioning for 30 minutes does not preclude a subsequent immediate waiver of the right.
As deft could attack credibility of victim under the same theory in other ways, no error in exclusion of victim's history.
Where objection for vouching is unspecific, and deft elicits avouching of vouching on cross, review is for plain error.
Where only one harmless error is found on review, no cumulative error.
United States v. Willis
No error in introduction of prior bad acts where the conduct was similar and spoke to the specific question in the present case.
Where tribal law required juvenile records to be expunged, and, contrary to that law, the records are later transmitted to another jurisdiction for use in a criminal case, there is no Due Process violation in the second forum.
Where deft invokes right to counsel, subsequent administrative questioning for 30 minutes does not preclude a subsequent immediate waiver of the right.
As deft could attack credibility of victim under the same theory in other ways, no error in exclusion of victim's history.
Where objection for vouching is unspecific, and deft elicits avouching of vouching on cross, review is for plain error.
Where only one harmless error is found on review, no cumulative error.
United States v. Willis
Ninth Circuit: Madeline Cardenas v. Loretta E. Lynch
Immigration, Due Process, Precedent
Narrowest concurrence controls on a plurality.
Where an immigration officer denies a visa, the rights of third party U.S. citizens are not harmed where there are discrete factual predicates found that correspond to a valid statute. Burden is on the petitioner to establish bad faith.
Assertion of racial prejudice and mistaken tattoo identification insufficient showing for bad faith.
Madeline Cardenas v. Loretta E. Lynch
Fourth Circuit: Dora Beltran v. Brent Cardall
Habeas, Immigration
Where petitioner alleges detention in violation of Constitution and statutes, federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction over Habeas petition on behalf of alien minor -- not a prohibited review of administrative determinations.
Determination that a minor is an unaccompanied alien child for purposes of the statute is a fact-intensive question, agency determination prevails.
As the specific controls the general, a statute authorizing detention and barring release to parent found inappropriate must be construed to bar inappropriate release even after the pendency of authorized detention.
Administrative decision that release to parent is inappropriate satisfies substantive DP.
Where a parent is seeking custody of child, procedural due process implies more than substantive due process inquiry -- full notice, appeal & Matthews v. Eldrige balancing implied.
Dissent:
Error as a matter of law to say that the statute allows gov't to determine that minor is "unaccompanied" if parent determined to be inappropriate.
Dora Beltran v. Brent Cardall
Fourth Circuit: Robert Sarvis v. James Alcorn
Election Law
Commonwealth's ballot ordering scheme does not impede access to ballot or association rights--no heightened scrutiny, despite potential "windfall vote" from order on the page.
Commonwealth's interest in preserving symmetry, reducing voter confusion properly pleaded. Little burden on petitioner.
Question for the political branches.
Robert Sarvis v. James Alcorn
Commonwealth's ballot ordering scheme does not impede access to ballot or association rights--no heightened scrutiny, despite potential "windfall vote" from order on the page.
Commonwealth's interest in preserving symmetry, reducing voter confusion properly pleaded. Little burden on petitioner.
Question for the political branches.
Robert Sarvis v. James Alcorn
Eleventh Circuit: Brandon Jones v. Commissioner, GA DOC, et al. (2)
S1983, Due Process
Due process claim against state secrecy statute doesn't state a claim under S1983.
Eighth amendment claim not appealed, insufficient, as no better method has been established.
Insufficient injury for standing resulting from state secrecy statute.
Lateness of appeal argues against equities of stay.
http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201610277.ord.pdf
[CB editorial: The death penalty is morally unjustifiable.]
Due process claim against state secrecy statute doesn't state a claim under S1983.
Eighth amendment claim not appealed, insufficient, as no better method has been established.
Insufficient injury for standing resulting from state secrecy statute.
Lateness of appeal argues against equities of stay.
http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201610277.ord.pdf
[CB editorial: The death penalty is morally unjustifiable.]
Eleventh Circuit: Brandon Jones v. Commissioner, GA DOC, et al. (1)
Due Process
Concurrence in denial of en banc - no Due Process right to discovery of method of manufacture of state execution materials, given state secrecy statute.
http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201610277.opn.pdf
[CB editorial: The death penalty is morally unjustifiable.]
Concurrence in denial of en banc - no Due Process right to discovery of method of manufacture of state execution materials, given state secrecy statute.
http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201610277.opn.pdf
[CB editorial: The death penalty is morally unjustifiable.]
Fifth Circuit: Jay Barrash v. Amer Assn of Neurl Surgns Inc.
Torts
Although the professional association did not provide the member under censure with sufficient due process under the rules of the organization, there was no inherent due process violation, as the member had sufficient advance notice of the materials in dispute.
As the association could have revoked the censure in full after the partial judicial rescission, there is no due process violation in the partial judicial rescission of the censure.
Under state law- judicial non-intervention bars relief for palintiff under contract theory in an alleged violation of bylaws.
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/14/14-20764-CV0.pdf
Although the professional association did not provide the member under censure with sufficient due process under the rules of the organization, there was no inherent due process violation, as the member had sufficient advance notice of the materials in dispute.
As the association could have revoked the censure in full after the partial judicial rescission, there is no due process violation in the partial judicial rescission of the censure.
Under state law- judicial non-intervention bars relief for palintiff under contract theory in an alleged violation of bylaws.
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/14/14-20764-CV0.pdf
Second Circuit: Victory v. Pataki et al.
S1983 Due Process - Parole
Prison inmate with a parole release date has a cognizable liberty interest.
As challenge to tribunal's decision was only possible by contradicting prior unsworn testimony of its members, there was no impartial decisionmaker at the point of parole rescission.
Absolute immunity for quasijudicial officers of parole board does not extend to fabrication of evidence before the initiation of proceedings.
Genuine issues of material fact on merits - remand.
http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/5402e8be-d735-46ae-b512-f956299ada45/1/doc/13-3592_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/5402e8be-d735-46ae-b512-f956299ada45/1/hilite/
Prison inmate with a parole release date has a cognizable liberty interest.
As challenge to tribunal's decision was only possible by contradicting prior unsworn testimony of its members, there was no impartial decisionmaker at the point of parole rescission.
Absolute immunity for quasijudicial officers of parole board does not extend to fabrication of evidence before the initiation of proceedings.
Genuine issues of material fact on merits - remand.
http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/5402e8be-d735-46ae-b512-f956299ada45/1/doc/13-3592_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/5402e8be-d735-46ae-b512-f956299ada45/1/hilite/
Eighth Circuit: Munna Godfrey v. Loretta E. Lynch
Immigration
Petitioner has burden to prove that checking a box indicating citizen/national reflected an intent to select the latter -- here, petitioners other representations to the contrary bar the claim.
Late introduction of the I9 in the immigration proceedings doesn't violate Due Process.
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/16/01/151027P.pdf
Petitioner has burden to prove that checking a box indicating citizen/national reflected an intent to select the latter -- here, petitioners other representations to the contrary bar the claim.
Late introduction of the I9 in the immigration proceedings doesn't violate Due Process.
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/16/01/151027P.pdf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)