U. S. Supreme Court Happenings and Favorable Federal Circuit Opinions for the week of February 19-23, 2024--

U. S. Supreme Court Happenings– Week ending February 23, 2024 –

The Justices met for their conference today. We expect Orders on February 23, 2024.

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court this morning handed a unanimous opinion the criminal case of McElrath v. Georgia, (No. 22-721) (S. Ct. Feb 21, 2024). Justice Jackson authored the ten-page opinion for the Court, which starts this way:

Under Georgia law, a jury’s verdict in a criminal case can be set aside if it is “repugnant” — meaning that it involves “affirmative findings by the jury that are not legally and logically possible of existing simultaneously.” 308 Ga. 104, 111, 839 S. E. 2d 573, 579 (2020). In this case, a jury found that petitioner Damian McElrath was “not guilty by reason of insanity” with respect to a malice-murder count, but was “guilty but mentally ill” regarding two other counts — felony murder and aggravated assault — all of which pertained to the same underlying homicide. Invoking the repugnancy doctrine, Georgia courts nullified both the “not guilty” and “guilty” verdicts, and authorized McElrath’s retrial.

McElrath now maintains that the Fifth Amendment’s Double Jeopardy Clause prevents the State from retrying him for the crime that had resulted in the “not guilty by reason of insanity” finding. Under the circumstances presented here, we agree. The jury’s verdict constituted an acquittal for double jeopardy purposes, and an acquittal is an acquittal notwithstanding its apparent inconsistency with other verdicts that the jury may have rendered.

Favorable Federal Circuit Opinions for the Week of February 19-23, 2024 –

2nd Circuit

Thomas v. United States, (No. 22-2026)(2nd Cir. February 21, 2024)– Petitioner-Appellant alleged ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to file an appeal from his resentencing, and he appealed the denial of his federal habeas petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 without fact-finding. As we held in Campusano v. United States, 442 F.3d 770 (2d Cir. 2006), a district court must engage in a fact inquiry when a habeas petitioner alleges that counsel failed to file a requested notice of appeal. The Court therefore vacated the district court’s order and remanded the case for further proceedings.

6th Circuit

United States v. Histed, (No. 22-2080)(6th Cir. February 22, 2024)– Histed pleaded guilty to possessingbvmethamphetamine with intent to distribute, and the district court sentenced him to 300 months’ imprisonment. Histed appealed his sentence on procedural and substantive grounds, arguing that the district court improperly calculated the drug quantity, among other things. The Court found that the district court procedurally erred in making its drug quantity determination. The district court must, at a minimum, find facts as to the quantity of drugs for which Histed bears responsibility and explain its methodology for reaching that drug quantity. The Court remanded this case to the district court for resentencing to make the particularized factfinding as to the drug quantity attributable to Histed. On remand, the court should limit its review to the evidence in the record in making its drug-quantity determination; the government will not get a “second bite at the apple” to present additional evidence on this issue that it did not use at Histed’s original sentencing hearing.

United States v. Ivy, (No. 22-4052)(6th Cir. February 21, 2024)– Ivy pleaded guilty to possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute and being a felon in possession of a firearm. At sentencing, the district court enhanced Ivy’s Sentencing Guidelines range upon finding that Ivy’s prior conviction for aggravated robbery under Ohio law was a “crime of violence” under the Guidelines. The Court held that a conviction for aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon under Ohio Revised Code § 2911.01(A)(1), without further information that the aggravated-robbery conviction is predicated on a particular underlying theft offense, is not a crime of violence. The Court thus vacated Ivy’s sentence and remanded to the district court for resentencing.

7th Circuit

United States v. Williams, (No. 23-2313)(7th Cir. February 20, 2024)– This case is the latest in a long-running effort by Adam Williams to obtain reductions in his sentences for crack-cocaine offenses. It relates to his 2019 application, filed pursuant to the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, § 404, 132 Stat. 5194, 5222. The district court denied that motion, but this Court vacated its order because the court failed to calculate the amended statutory sentencing ranges applicable to Williams’s convictions. Williams amplified his motion on remand, highlighting significant changes to his record and conditions of confinement that post-dated the order we vacated. Nonetheless, the district court denied Williams’s request just one day after receiving the updated motion, in an order materially identical to the first one. Applying the totality-of-circumstances test the Supreme Court called for in Chavez-Meza v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1959, 1965–66 (2018), the Court concluded that this was a case that required “a more complete explanation,” Id. (citing Molina-Martinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1338, 1348 (2016)). The Court vacated the judgment and remanded again for further proceedings.

10th Circuit

United States v. Garcia-Rodriguez, (No. 22-6194)(10th Cir. February 21, 2024)--This appeal stemmed from two individuals’ cross-country car trip. Inside the car were secret compartments containing bundles of methamphetamine. But to the casual observer, the car looked like any other car. The driver apparently knew about the secret compartments of methamphetamine, but did the passenger? It’s possible, but there was no evidence that the driver had told the passenger about the methamphetamine or the passenger had detected the secret compartments. Without such evidence, could a reasonable jury find the passenger guilty of crimes that required her knowledge of the drugs? The Court found that the jury had insufficient evidence to find Ms. Garcia-Rodriguez guilty of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine or interstate travel associated with a drug-trafficking enterprise and reversed her convictions and remanded with instructions to enter a judgment of acquittal.

Latest Bureau of Prison’s Statistics (From BOP Website):

Fair Sentencing/Retroactive Sentence Reductions 4,134 Orders Granted to date.
Elderly Offender Home Confinement 1,247. Approved to date.
First Step Act Releases 29,682 granted to date.
Compassionate Releases/Reduction in Sentences 4,688 granted to date.
Population in RRC’s 8,044.
Population in Home Confinement 5,031.

COMMENT:

This week was a better week for favorable federal circuit cases. Hopefully, we will start getting some opinions from the Supreme Court in criminal cases soon like Rahimi.

We are still receiving a great amount of people wanting to find out if they qualify for any of the new USSG Amendments such 814 and 821. We suggest that you opt for a Written Case Evaluation (“WCE”) as soon as possible to make that determination. Amendment 821 became effective on February 1, 2024, and we are already seeing a flood of these so-called motions being filed. We have seen the Form Fill-in Motions, which do not do the job the way it should be done. As such, all of those motions we have seen have been denied. There is a lot more to it than filling out a form. The motion must be personalized. A WCE will also tell you if you have any other relief available.

For the last 29 years, we have been very successful. We can help on direct appeals, 2255 motions, 2241 Petitions, First Step Act and Compassionate Release Motions, Earned Time Credits, DC Superior Court Petitions, State Post Conviction, Clemencies and Pardons and other specialized motions to mention a few avenues for relief we cover. The WCE is an excellent low cost tool to see what can be done for you at any stage of the proceedings. It is thorough and detailed from day one of your case to present with our recommendations of any remedies available to gain relief.

If you are serious about fighting your case and want us to evaluate your case to see if you may have relief coming, request a Written Case Evaluation.