by Richard Resch

In a case of first impression, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held that it may raise sua sponte on appeal a claim of error not timely raised by the defendant where there was “a violation of the mandate rule.” The Court …

by Richard Resch

The Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas held a trial court lacked jurisdiction to revoke community supervision where the violation occurred after the statutory maximum term of five years concluded, despite the fact he had been sentenced to a 10-year term.

Before the Court …

by Richard Resch

In a case involving an issue of first impression, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana erred by denying Russell Taylor’s motion to suppress and request for an evidentiary hearing to …

by Richard Resch

The Supreme Court of Colorado held that under Colorado Rule of Evidence (“CRE”) 106 if the prosecution creates a misleading impression by excluding statements made by the defendant that should be considered together with the proffered evidence out of fairness, the rule of completeness …

by Richard Resch

The Court of Appeals of New York ruled that the defendant (1) moving from the driver’s seat to the passenger’s seat, (2) positioning upper torso toward driver’s seat, (3) pulling pants up upon exiting vehicle, and (4) appearing nervous when questioned by police were insufficient …

by Richard Resch

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit held that the prosecution violated its Brady disclosure obligations by withholding multiple law enforcement reports from the defendant, even though most of the information within the reports was available to the defendant from other sources, because …

by Richard Resch

The Supreme Court of Wyoming ­reversed Myron Martize Woods’ conviction for interference with a peace officer because the arresting officers’ warrantless entry into his home, without any applicable exception, meant that they were acting unlawfully in effectuating his arrest, but an “elemental” requirement of this offense is that the police were lawfully performing their official duties. 

On February 13, 2020, Cheyenne Police Department Officer Warren was called to the home of Brittany Jackson for a domestic disturbance. Jackson claimed that Woods grabbed her neck and pushed her. Warren did not see any marks on Jackson’s neck, so he concluded that there was not probable cause to arrest Woods.

Approximately two hours later, Warrant and his supervisor, Sergeant Young, returned to Jackson’s home in response to her request for further investigation. This time, the officers observed marks on her neck and determined that there was probable cause to arrest Woods for misdemeanor domestic battery. Mistakenly believing that an arrest warrant was not required under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 7-20-102(a) because the alleged offense occurred less than 24 hours ago, the officers did not attempt to obtain an arrest warrant for Woods.

Warren, Young, …

by Richard Resch

The Supreme Court of the United States unanimously held that a conviction that is reversed based on a judicial determination that the Venue Clause and the Vicinage Clause of the Sixth Amendment were violated due to a trial held in an improper venue does not adjudicate the defendant’s culpability, and thus, the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment is not triggered and does not prohibit retrying the defendant in the proper venue.

Timothy Smith is a software engineer and fishing enthusiast from Mobile, Alabama. In 2018, he came across a company called StrikeLines that utilizes sonar equipment to locate private, artificial reefs that people build to attract fish. The company sells the geographic coordinates of the reefs to interested fishing enthusiasts.

Smith apparently objected to this business model because StrikeLines was profiting, unfairly in his opinion, from the work of private reef builders. He used an application to secretly obtain portions of the company’s reef coordinate data and offered it to others online. StrikeLines eventually contacted him, and Smith offered to remove the online data as well as fix the company’s security flaws in exchange for coordinates to “deep grouper spots” that …

by Richard Resch

In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court of the United States held that § 924(c)(1)(D)(ii)’s prohibition on concurrent sentences does not extend to sentences imposed under a different subsection of the statute, viz., § 924(j), and thus, when multiple convictions – including a § 924(j) conviction – are involved, sentencing courts are free to run the sentences concurrently or consecutively.

In 2002, a group engaged in drug-dealing murdered a rival dealer. Efrain Lora was accused of serving as a lookout during the shooting. He was convicted of aiding and abetting in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(j)(1), which criminalizes the actions of a “person who, in the course of a violation of subsection (c), causes the death of a person through the use of a firearm,” where the death is the result of murder. Lora was also convicted of conspiracy to distribute drugs in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 and 846.

During sentencing, Lora argued that the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York had discretion to run his § 924(j) concurrently with his conspiracy sentence, but the District Court ruled that it did not have the discretion to …

by Richard Resch

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that a postconviction relief (“PCR”) application in Arizona is “pending as long as a state avenue of relief remains open, whether or not a petitioner takes advantage of it” and thus tolls the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996’s (“AEDPA”) one-year statute of limitations period – 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1) – for filing a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

In 2013, Paul Melville was convicted of two counts of armed robbery and four counts of aggravated assault. He was sentenced to an 18-year prison term. His convictions were affirmed on direct review by the Arizona Court of Appeals on July 29, 2014. The Court summarized the key dates as follows:

July 29, 2014 - Conviction affirmed by Arizona Court of Appeals on direct appeal

September 26, 2014 - PCR petition signed by Melville and delivered to prison officials for mailing to Maricopa County Superior Court

September 29, 2014 - Expiration of extension of time to petition the Arizona Supreme Court for review of affirmance by Arizona Court of Appeals on direct review of conviction (no such …