by David M. Reutter
This Paper “is the first to provide an in-depth analysis of the role criminal court administrators have played in the shift from criminal courts as sites of adjudication to criminal courts as sites of social control,” contributes to the conversations “about the failure of criminal courts ...
by David M. Reutter
The Supreme Judicial Court of Maine concluded a post-conviction review (“PCR”) court misconstrued aspects of relevant law concerning a claim that counsel’s failure to assert the right to a speedy trial constituted ineffective assistance of counsel.
The Court’s opinion was issued in an appeal brought by ...
by David M. Reutter
The Supreme Court of Michigan held that a guilty plea cannot be understandingly or knowingly entered into when it was, in significant part, induced on the basis of an inaccurate understanding of the minimum and maximum possible prison sentence. It was error, therefore, to deny ...
by David M. Reutter
While a conversation on police brutality and misconduct can evolve into a heated debate, one thing no one argues about is whether or not it occurs, for there is general acceptance that it does. Scholars have produced literature that contributes to the conversation of whether financial ...
by David M. Reutter
On July 7, 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, in a precedential ruling, ordered a defendant to be resentenced after it found there was insufficient evidence to support a conviction for possession with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of cocaine ...
by David M. Reutter
The Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District, vacated a defendant’s conviction after finding the immigration consequences were not understood when he entered a plea of no contest to a domestic violence charge, which was an aggravated felony under federal immigration law that required deportation.
The Court’s opinion was issued in connection with Cesar Alfredo Villalba’s appeal of the denial of his motion brought pursuant to Penal Code § 1473.7(a). Villalba was charged on January 26, 2017, by felony complaint with inflicting corporal injury on his spouse. The complaint also alleged great bodily injury on the victim. Villalba waived a preliminary hearing on April 26, 2017, and negotiated a plea agreement that provided for the no contest plea in return for the striking of the great bodily injury allegation and a suspended sentence conditioned upon 365 days in county jail, five years felony probation, a protective order, and 52 weeks of domestic violence classes and fines.
After assuring Villalba understood the terms and conditions, the trial court said, “I don’t know if this applies to you or not. I don’t need to know. I just need to advise you that if you’re not a citizen ...
by David M. Reutter
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held a federal defendant was denied the effective assistance of counsel by failing to object to his designation as a career offender on the ground the conspiracy under 21 U.S.C. § 846 is broader than generic conspiracy and thus does not constitute a controlled substance offense under the Sentencing Guidelines.
The Court’s opinion was issued in an appeal brought by Germaine Cannady after his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petition was denied by the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. Cannady was found guilty by a jury of one count of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute cocaine and heroin and one count of attempted possession with intent to distribute cocaine and heroin in violation of § 846.
A Presentencing Investigation Report (“PSR”) presented at the June 2015 sentencing hearing calculated Cannady’s base offense level as 34 and his criminal history as VI, making his Sentencing Guidelines range 262 to 327 months in prison with application of the career offender enhancement. The District Court found the nature of the instant offenses and the prior criminal history triggered the Guidelines’ career offender enhancement. Without ...
by David M. Reutter
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that the plain text of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(1) “requires a sentencing court to find that a defendant has all three of the listed criminal history characteristics before excluding a defendant from a safety valve eligibility” under the First Step Act.
Cassity Danielle Jones pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute 50 or more grams of methamphetamine, which carries a 10-year mandatory minimum sentence of imprisonment. At sentencing, Jones argued that she was entitled to relief under the First Step Act’s (“Act”) safety valve provision in § 3553(f)(1).
The safety value provision provides that a sentencing court may impose a sentence without regard to the applicable mandatory minimum if it finds that: “(1) the defendant does not have – more than 4 criminal history points, excluding any criminal history points resulting from a 1-point offense … a prior 3-point offense … ; and a prior 2-point violent offense….” § 3553(f)(1) (emphasis supplied).
There was no dispute that Jones had more than four criminal history points, satisfying subsection (A). However, she argued that because she did not have a prior 3-point offense or prior 2-point violent ...
by David M. Reutter
The Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District, ruled that Miguel Lopez “demonstrated a reasonable probability that if he had been properly advised of the immigration consequences of his plea, he would not have pleaded no contest to an offense that would subject him to ...
by David M. Reutter
The Supreme Court of Florida held dual convictions for DUI causing damage to property or person – § 316.193(3)(c)(1), Florida Statutes – and DUI causing serious injury – § 316.193(3)(c)(2), Florida Statutes – as to the same victim arising from a single episode violates the prohibition ...