Criminal Law News Headlines

Case Summaries

Asset Forfeiture

[10/30] US v. Levesque
A forfeiture order for $3,068,000 for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 100 kilograms or more of marijuana, is vacated and remanded where: 1) 21 U.S.C. section 853 authorizes money judgments; 2) the case is remanded to give district court the opportunity to consider whether and to what extent the ruling in the recent Supreme Court case, US v. Santos, 128 S. Ct. 2020 (2008), affects the forfeiture determination in this case; and 3) the case is remanded for lower court to consider whether the imposition of the forfeiture violated the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment in light of recent pertinent case law.

[10/20] US v. One Star Class Sloop Sailboat Built in 1930 with Hull Number 721
Following a decision finding that the government failed to take reasonable steps to notify a part-owner of a vessel of its intent to forfeit, the damage award of a share of net sales and attorneys' fees is affirmed as modified where the district court erred only in using an impermissible factor to justify an across-the-board disallowance of two-thirds of the time that one attorney claimed to have spent in litigating the default judgment.

[09/26] Chichakli v. Szubin
In an action challenging a "Blocking Notice" issued by the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), summary judgment for defendants is affirmed in part and vacated in part where: 1) exigent circumstances justified the holding of a post-deprivation hearing after plaintiff's assets were frozen; 2) OFAC's determination that plaintiff was subject to a presidential order freezing his assets was neither arbitrary nor capricious; but 3) jurisdiction over plaintiff's taking claim was held exclusively by the Court of Federal Claims.

More...

Criminal Law & Procedure

[11/20] In Re: Amendments to Fla. R. Crim. P.
In response to an out-of-cycle report of the Florida Bar's Criminal Procedure Rules Committee, the court adopts the committee's proposed amendments to conform the rules to recent legislation.

[11/20] US v. Nevils
Conviction for being a felon in possession of firearms and ammunition is reversed where the evidence offered with respect to the element of knowing possession was insufficient.

[11/20] Doody v. Schriro
In a habeas proceeding following convictions for murder and robbery, denial of petition for relief is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) the state court's holding that defendant received adequate Miranda warnings was not an unreasonable application of clearly-established federal law; but 2) police coercion of defendant's confession over a twelve-hour period of interrogation rendered it involuntary.

More...

Sentencing

[11/20] US v. Ellis
Convictions and sentence for failure to account for and pay federal taxes owed by defendant's business are affirmed over objections regarding: 1) the admission of evidence of defendant's personal expenditures; 2) the admission of evidence regarding other, uncharged tax violations; 3) the imposition of a sentence enhancement for obstruction of justice on the basis of defendant's perjury; and 4) the imposition of a fine in an amount above the sentencing guidelines recommendation.

[11/19] People v. Rabanales
Seven-year sentence for attempted murder pursuant to a plea agreement is affirmed over claims of error that: 1) the trial court did not follow the plea agreement when it imposed the sentence; 2) the trial court deprived defendant of his constitutional right to due process and his right to a jury trial when it found him in violation of his plea agreement and sent him to prison because of a domestic violence allegation that was never tried to a jury or proven beyond a reasonable doubt; and 3) trial court erred in finding that defendant violated a condition of his own recognizance release while awaiting final sentencing.

[11/19] People v. Conners
Conviction and sentence for receiving stolen property and money laundering is affirmed in part and remanded where: 1) the evidence was sufficient to sustain the convictions; 2) defendant did not demonstrate that he did not knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel according to Faretta v. California; 3) the absence of a meaningful probation report and the court's refusal to continue the sentencing hearing required a remand for resentencing; and 4) the trial court erred in refusing to stay defendant's sentence for receiving stolen property under section 654.

More...