Friday, April 27, 2012

Fwd: Criminal Law Summaries Distributed April 27, 2012



Victor Cuvo, Attorney at Law
770.582.9904
(sent from new iPad)

Begin forwarded message:

From: Justia Practice Area Opinion Summaries <notifications@justia.info>
Date: April 27, 2012 9:05:36 AM EDT
To: Victor Cuvo <vacuvo@yahoo.com>
Subject: Criminal Law Summaries Distributed April 27, 2012
Reply-To: Justia Practice Area Opinion Summaries <notifications@justia.info>

If you are unable to see this message, click here to view it in a web browser.
To ensure delivery to your inbox, please add notifications@justia.info to your address book.
Justia Daily Opinion Summaries is a FREE service.

Subscribe to summaries of US appellate court opinions at Daily.Justia.com

Practice area emails with summaries from all reviewed courts are sent weekly.

You May FREELY Redistribute This E-Mail in Whole.

Today on Verdict

Vikram David Amar

Five Free Speech Myths of Which College Demonstrators and Protestors Should Be Aware to Avoid Unexpected Trouble

Justia columnist and U.C., Davis law professor Vikram Amar separates First Amendment fact from First Amendment fiction when it comes to college demonstrations and protests. Read Article

Weekly Opinion Summaries

Criminal Law

Weekly Summaries Distributed April 27, 2012
Receive this and other FREE daily opinion summaries from Justia Subscribe Now to Justia Daily Opinion Summaries

Wood v. Milyard

Court: U.S. Supreme Court

Docket: 10-9995 Opinion Date: April 24, 2012

Judge: Ginsburg

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

In 1987, petitioner was convicted of murder and other crimes by a Colorado court and sentenced to life imprisonment. Petitioner filed a federal habeas petition in 2008. After receiving the petition, the district court asked the State if it planned to argue that the petition was untimely. In response, the State twice informed the district court that it would "not challenge, but [was] not conceding," the timeliness of the petition. Thereafter, the district court ordered the parties to brief both the merits and the timeliness of the petition. At issue was the authority of a federal court to raise, on its own motion, a statute of limitations defense to a habeas corpus petition. The Court held that courts of appeal, like district courts, have the authority - though not the obligation - to raise a forfeited timeliness defense on their own initiative in exceptional cases. The Tenth Circuit abused its discretion when it dismissed the petition as untimely. In the district court, the State was well aware of the statute of limitations defense available to it, and of the arguments that could be made in support of that defense. Yet, the State twice informed the district court that it would "challenge" the timeliness of the petition. In doing so, the State deliberately waived the statute of limitations defense. In light of that waiver, the Tenth Circuit should have followed the district court's lead and decided the merits of the petition. Accordingly, the Court reversed and remanded.

http://j.st/dPC View Case
View Case on: Justia  Google Scholar

United States v. Ramos

Court: U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals

Docket: 10-3982 Opinion Date: April 26, 2012

Judge: Per curiam

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, Immigration Law

Defendant appealed his conviction following his guilty plea to illegally transporting aliens within the United States; assisting an inadmissible alien in entering the United States; and illegally being present in the United States after having previously been removed. On appeal, defendant contended, inter alia, that the district court miscalculated the applicable sentencing range under the Sentencing Guidelines by adding two points to his criminal history pursuant to U.S.S.G. 4A1.1(d) for his commission of an offense while under a criminal justice sentence. The court held that defendant's knowledge that he was subject to a term of supervised release was not required for the district court to impose an enhancement based on the fact that defendant committed the instant crimes while "under a criminal justice sentence." The court declined to reach defendant's ineffective assistance claim and dismissed without prejudice. With regard to defendant's remaining claims, the court found them to be without merit. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.

http://j.st/d8W View Case
View Case on: Justia  Google Scholar

Morris v. Holder

Court: U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals

Docket: 10-4687 Opinion Date: April 23, 2012

Judge: Livingston

Areas of Law: Criminal Law, Immigration Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of the Grenadines, petitioned for review of the BIA's order affirming the IJ's finding that he was removable based on his second-degree assault conviction in violation of New York Law 120.05(2) and on the basis of petitioner's conviction of attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree in violation of New York Penal Law 110 and 220.3. The court concluded that a conviction for second-degree assault under section 120.05(2) categorically constituted a "crime of violence" for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. 16(b). The court also concluded that the Supreme Court's decision in Padilla v. Kentucky did not overturn the court's precedent holding that the Ex Post Facto Clause was not applicable in the deportation and removal context. Accordingly, the court dismissed the petition.

http://j.st/dAb View Case
View Case on: Justia  Google Scholar
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)