Justia U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

A Florida jury convicted Antonio Melton of armed robbery and first-degree felony murder for shooting George Carter during a robbery of Carter’s pawn shop. He was sentenced to death. Melton sought postconviction relief from the Supreme Court of Florida, which denied relief. Melton then filed a federal petition for a writ of habeas corpus, arguing that under "Roper v. Simmons," (543 U.S. 551 (2005)), the state courts violated his rights under the Eighth Amendment when they relied on a juvenile conviction as an aggravating factor in a capital case and when they failed to consider his "mental and emotional age." The district court denied the petition and refused to grant a certificate of appealability. Melton moved the Eleventh Circuit to grant him a certificate of appealability, and that request was denied. Melton moved for reconsideration to include as new issues his arguments based on Roper. Because neither issue was debatable, the Eleventh Circuit denied Melton’s motion. View "Melton v. Secretary, Florida Dept. of Corrections" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-appellant Kelly Gissendaner was convicted for murdering her husband, for which she was sentenced to death by lethal injection. She filed a 42 U.S.C. 1983 lawsuit alleging Georgia's method of execution violated the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. After a hearing, the district court denied plaintiff's request for a temporary restraining order, and dismissed her complaint for failing to state a claim for relief. She appealed that judgment. After review, the Eleventh Circuit concluded the district court did not err in arriving at its decision, and affirmed. View "Gissendaner v. Commissioner, Georgia Dept. of Corrections" on Justia Law

Petitioner-appellant Rodolfo Hernandez pleaded guilty to one count of conspiring to possess with intent to distribute at least 1,000 kilograms of a substance containing marijuana, and three counts of possession with intent to distribute at least 100 kilograms of a substance containing marijuana. After Hernandez entered his plea, but before his conviction became final, the Supreme Court decided "Padilla v. Kentucky," holding that counsel must inform her client whether his plea carries a risk of deportation. Hernandez later moved to vacate his sentence based on ineffective assistance of counsel. The district court concluded counsel did not render ineffective assistance and denied the motion without an evidentiary hearing. The issue this case presented for the Eleventh Circuit's review was whether the district court abused its discretion when it refused that evidentiary hearing. Concluding that it did, the Eleventh Circuit vacated the district court's judgment, and remanded the case with instructions to conduct the evidentiary hearing. View "Hernandez v. United States" on Justia Law

Florida inmate Paul Everett petitioned for habeas relief after he was convicted of first-degree murder, for which he received the death penalty. The district court denied his petition, but granted a certificate of appealability (COA) as to one issue: whether a law enforcement officer's request for a consent to search from, or service of an arrest warrant on, a defendant in custody who invoked his right to counsel violated the Fifth Amendment. Upon Everett's motion, the Eleventh Circuit expanded the COA to include an additional issue: whether the district court erred in denying Everett's claim that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance in the investigation and presentation of mitigating evidence during the penalty phase of his 2002 trial. Having considered the state court record, the district court's thorough order, and the parties' submissions, and with the benefit of oral argument, the Eleventh Circuit found no reversible error in the district court's denial of Everett's petition for habeas relief, and affirmed. View "Everett v. Sec'y, Florida Dept. of Corrections" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his convictions of sexual exploitation of a child and possession of child pornography. The court affirmed the convictions, concluding that the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant, and that his indictment was not defective for failure to identify the specific image charged and defendant did not suffer actual prejudice. View "United States v. Bailey" on Justia Law

Defendant moved to Daytona Beach, Florida after registering as a sex offender in the Northern District of Georgia. Defendant failed to update his registration in Daytona Beach and was indicted for failure to register. Defendant conditionally plead guilty, the district court denied defendant's motion to dismiss his indictment, and sentenced him to 16 months imprisonment for violating the terms of his supervised release. The court joined its sister circuits and held that 18 U.S.C. 3237 applies and venue lies in Georgia. The court concluded that, because the crime consists both of traveling and failing to register, defendant began his crime in Georgia and consummated it in Florida. The court also concluded that defendant's sentence for violating his supervised release is substantively reasonable. Accordingly, the court affirmed defendant's conviction for failure to register as a sex offender and his sentence for failing to comply with the terms of his supervised release. View "United States v. Kopp" on Justia Law

Eight defendants, seven individuals and one corporation, appealed their convictions and sentences stemming from their involvement in a complex and sustained scheme of Medicare fraud. The seven individual defendants are the owners of Biscayne Milieu, a certified Community Mental Health Center. Defendants' offenses were related to Biscayne Milieu's submission of fraudulent Medicare claims. The court affirmed the convictions and sentences after considering the numerous issues on appeal regarding each of the eight defendants: the sufficiency of the evidence; multiplicitous counts in the indictment; juror removal and attorney misconduct; admission of lay testimony; reference to invocation of right to counsel; prosecutor comments at closing argument; defining "attempt;" cumulative errors; sentencing; and restitution. View "United States v. Moran" on Justia Law

Defendant, the Director of International Affairs at Telecommunications D'Haiti, appealed his conviction for two counts of conspiring to commit money laundering and 19 counts of concealment of money laundering, as well as his sentence. Defendant's convictions stemmed from his involvement in two schemes in which international companies gave him bribes in exchange for favors from Teleco. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it questioned jurors as a group about mid-trial publicity; there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find that Teleco was an instrumentality of the Government of Haiti; the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied defendant's requested jury instruction on the exception for routine governmental action; the government did not interfere with defendant's right to call a witness; and defendant's sentence is not procedurally or substantively unreasonable. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Duperval" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence after pleading guilty to illegal reentry after being deported subsequent to an aggravated felony conviction. The district court applied a 16-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii), finding that defendant's prior Florida conviction of throwing a deadly missile, pursuant to Florida Statute 790.19, was a crime of violence. The court's recent decision in United States v. Estrella held that a conviction under Florida Statute 790.19 is not categorically a crime of violence for purposes of application of the 16-level crime-of-violence enhancement. The government has conceded that the enhancement was erroneously applied based on this particular conviction. Accordingly, the court remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Estrada" on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of conspiring to possess with intent to distribute, appealed the denial of his 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion to vacate his sentence based on the ineffective assistance of counsel. Petitioner's counsel died before defendant filed his petition. The district court permitted counsel for petitioner's codefendant to testify at an evidentiary hearing over petitioner's objection under Federal Rule of Evidence 807. The court held that statements admitted under Rule 807 lacked the "circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness" required by the rule, and so it was error for the district court to admit them. Nonetheless, the court did not reverse the denial of motion because petitioner failed to meet his burden to prove the claims in his petition. Therefore, the Rule 807 error was harmless and the court affirmed the judgment. View "Rivers v. United States" on Justia Law