Criminal Law

Defendants waived challenge to term of supervised release that required defendants not to patronize taverns or liquor stores where liquor was primarily sold, where defendants had failed to raise in Dist. Ct. current argument that said alcohol condition was unconstitutionally vague. Both defendants confirmed that they had read their presentence reports, reviewed said reports with their counsel and waived oral reading of proposed supervised release conditions without raising instant argument.

Dist. Ct. erred in denying defendant’s habeas petition that challenged his armed robbery and armed burglary convictions arising out of home invasion, where defendant alleged that his trial counsel was ineffective by failing to: (1) investigate and subpoena individual whom defendant had believed had actually committed charged offenses; (2) question important govt. witness about any offers of immunity; and (3) object to certain hearsay testimony regarding location and use of defendant‘s cell phone. Said failures served to undermine confidence in result of defendant’s trial, and record showed reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s failures, result of trial would have been different, especially where jury would have had opportunity to see and assess said individual’s credibility, as well as assess possibility that said individual was actual culprit.

Dist. Ct. erred in sentencing defendant to 18-year term of incarceration on charge of drug distribution of more than 100 kilograms of marijuana, as well as unlawful possession of firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking, where instant sentence was based, in part, on Dist. Ct.’s finding that defendant was responsible for equivalent of 4,679.7 kilograms of marijuana as relevant conduct that was based on statements in presentence report from two confidential informants. Dist. Ct. could not make instant relevant conduct finding based on bare statements from confidential informants, where report failed to contain statements/evidence indicating reliability of said informants. As such, remand was required for new sentencing hearing that allows govt. to supply evidence of informant’s reliability.

Record contained sufficient evidence to support Dist. Ct.’s revocation of defendant’s term of supervised release, where Dist. Ct. found that: (1) defendant and two associates agreed to shoot victim; (2) defendant was aware of said plan; (3) defendant and his two associates chased victim in their motorcycles; (4) one of said associates shot victim in his truck; and (5) defendant aided shooter by accepting shooter’s motorcycle jacket and then returning it in effort to conceal shooter’s identity. Also, written revocation petition provided defendant with sufficient notice of violation of supervised release, and failure of Dist. Ct. to hold preliminary hearing was harmless error, where defendant failed to establish any prejudice arising out of said failure. Dist. Ct. erred, though, in sentencing defendant to 30-month term of incarceration arising out of instant revocation, where Dist. Ct. failed to identify appropriate category of offense under sentencing guideline and failed to consider applicable sentencing range prior to imposing instant sentence.

Ct. of Appeals granted counsel for defendant’s motion to withdraw and dismiss defendant’s appeal that essentially sought to withdraw his guilty plea to drug distribution charge. Defendant received 111-month term of incarceration, which was 77 months below low end of applicable sentencing guideline range, and which was imposed based, in part, on fact that defendant had accepted responsibility by entering into guilty plea. Defendant told his counsel that he wanted to go to trial, but that he did not want to contest his sentence if his conviction remained in place. As such, defendant’s decision not to dispute his sentence made it unnecessary for Anders purposes for counsel to discuss any sentencing issue, and Ct. further found that defendant’s arguments on appeal with respect to his desire to withdraw his guilty pleas were frivolous.