Criminal Law

Dist. Ct. erred in denying defendant’s request to withdraw his guilty plea to wire fraud charge arising out of scheme to obtain money and property from mortgage lenders by means of submitting documents containing false statements in order to induce lenders to loan said money. Record suggested that defendant did not understand nature of instant wire fraud charge, where defendant’s colloquy demonstrated that defendant was confused about concept of fraudulent intent and was equivocal in many of his answers to Dist. Ct. regarding his actions. Moreover, neither Dist. Ct. nor defendant’s counsel explained nature of fraudulent intent in record.

In sentencing defendant on charge of failing to register as sex offender, Dist. Ct. erred in imposing as special condition of defendant’s supervised release, requirement that defendant refrain from using any “mood altering substance” where said condition was not mentioned by Dist. Ct. in its oral ruling at sentencing hearing. Moreover, remand was required for Dist. Ct. to clarify what websites defendant cannot access during his supervised release since Dist. Ct.’s requirement that defendant obtain computer software filter to block access to “sexually oriented websites” was too vague, and Dist. Ct. otherwise failed to make any findings to support such ban. Also, Dist. Ct. must make finding of defendant’s ability to pay for alcohol and mental health treatment before making such requirement as part of special condition of supervised release.

Defendant was entitled to new sentencing hearing on charge of distribution of crack cocaine, even though Dist. Ct. imposed below-guidelines, 48-month term of incarceration. Dist. Ct. improperly made no mention of defendant’s principle arguments in seeking 18-month term of incarceration that included claim that: (1) instant guideline range was based mainly on fact that he had sold large quantity of counterfeit drug substances; and (2) 18 to 1 crack/powder disparity unfairly drove his sentencing range significantly higher. Moreover, said failure precluded Ct. of Appeals from determining whether Dist. Ct. had actually considered said arguments in fashioning defendant’s sentence, or whether instant sentence was reasonable.

Defendant was entitled to new sentencing hearing on finding that defendant had violated terms of his supervised release, where Dist. Ct. judge that imposed instant 15-month term of incarceration had also made appearance as prosecutor in hearing on defendant’s first violation of terms of his supervised release that occurred prior to her appointment to District Ct. bench. District Ct.’s involvement in prior matter constituted ground for disqualification under 28 USC section 455(b) that could not be waived.

In prosecution on drug and firearm charges, Dist. Ct. erred in admitting evidence of forensic laboratory reports that confirmed existence of drugs at crime scene, where said reports were admitted into evidence without testimony of analyst who prepared said reports. However, error was harmless where defendant never contested at trial that substances found at crime scene were in fact drugs. Moreover, Dist. Ct. did not err in admitting taped conversation of defendant that was made in caged backseat of squad car, since defendant did not have objective reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to said conversation.