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

The Eleventh Circuit vacated the district court's order dismissing petitioner's 28 U.S.C. 2254 petition as untimely. The court held that, for the purposes of tolling under section 2244(d)(2), a petitioner's Rule 3.850 motion is "pending" until it is denied with prejudice. The court held that petitioner's Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) clock was tolled from the date he filed his improperly sworn Rule 3.850 motion to the date the state court rendered a decision on his substitute Rule 3.850 motion. Therefore, his petition was timely. View "Hall v. Secretary, Department of Corrections" on Justia Law

Plaintiff was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment as well as its denial of plaintiff's original and renewed motions for preliminary injunction. The court also denied plaintiff's motion for a stay of execution because he failed to show a substantial likelihood of success with respect to either his Fourteenth Amendment equal-protection claim or his Eighth Amendment method-of-execution claim.In regard to the Fourteenth Amendment claim, the state did not violate his right to equal protection by not permitting him to elect nitrogen hypoxia as a method of execution. In this case, plaintiff had the same opportunity as every other inmate to elect nitrogen hypoxia, but he did not timely choose that method of execution. The court held that a rational basis exists for the thirty-day rule—the efficient and orderly use of state resources in planning and preparing for executions, and plaintiff failed to negate this rational basis for the thirty-day election requirement. In regard to the Eighth Amendment claim, although plaintiff has shown that nitrogen hypoxia is an available alternative method of execution that is feasible and readily implemented, he has not established a substantial likelihood that he would be able to show that nitrogen hypoxia significantly reduces a substantial risk of pain when compared to the three-drug protocol. View "Price v. Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing defendant's request for a jury instruction on the innocent transitory possession defense. Even if the innocent transitory possession defense was somehow available in this circuit, the district court would not have abused its discretion in declining to give the instruction in this case, because it was plain from the record that defendant did not rid himself of possession of the firearm as promptly as reasonably possible.The court also rejected defendant's claim that the term "unlawful possession" under 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1) was unconstitutionally vague. The court held that the government established that defendant's prior Florida convictions for aggravated battery and felony battery qualified as violent felonies under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA); defendant's claims that his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights were violated because his sentence was increased based on the ACCA was foreclosed by binding precedent; and defendant's claim that section 922(g) is unconstitutional was also barred by binding precedent. View "United States v. Vereen" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit vacated defendant's sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of ammunition. Defendant was sentenced under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) based on his prior Georgia convictions for aggravated assault, possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, and felony obstruction of a law enforcement officer.The court held that Georgia aggravated assault did not qualify as a violent felony under the ACCA. The court explained that, when based on a simple assault under O.C.G.A. 16-5-20(a)(2), Georgia's aggravated assault statute, O.C.G.A. 16-5-21(a)(2), can be satisfied by a mens rea of recklessness. Because defendant did not have the three prerequisite convictions under the ACCA, the court remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Moss" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the denial of his motion to suppress evidence after pleading guilty to two counts of unlawful possession of a firearm. The Eleventh Circuit held that the warrantless search of defendant's crawlspace was lawful under the emergency aid aspect of the exigent circumstances doctrine, and officers had probable cause to believe that the hole contained additional hostages. In this case, it was reasonable to believe that the crawlspace -- which was covered by a makeshift plywood door -- might have contained hostages, and the officers were justified in removing the plywood cover and briefly searching the crawlspace without a warrant. View "United States v. Cooks" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit dismissed petitioner's appeal of the district court's denial of his motions for leave to file an amended motion for appointment of independent counsel and for appointment of independent supplemental or substitute counsel. The court held that the motions were not appealable under 28 U.S.C. 1291 because petitioner's proceedings under 28 U.S.C. 2254 were still pending. View "Crain v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed defendant's 300 month sentence imposed after he was convicted of possession with intent to distribute cocaine and marijuana, possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking offense, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. The court held that defendant's prior Florida state conviction for battery of a jail detainee qualified as a crime of violence under the Sentencing Guidelines, because defendant's conviction for battery necessarily was for intentionally causing bodily harm. View "United States v. Gandy" on Justia Law

Defendant purported to bring a direct criminal appeal, alleging that the government breached the terms of their plea agreement. After sentencing, defendant filed an untitled document in the district court stating her intent to file a collateral attack.The Eleventh Circuit dismissed the appeal based on lack of jurisdiction. The court held that defendant's filing reflected her understanding of her waiver of a direct appeal under the plea agreement, and the filing did not comply with the jurisdictional requirements for a notice of appeal under Rule 3 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. View "United States v. Padgett" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress evidence of a firearm recovered from his person by police. Defendant had conditionally pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm.The court held that defendant's encounter with the detectives was part of a lawful traffic stop where the detectives had probable cause to believe that the driver of the vehicle was committing a traffic violation. Moreover, the detectives were justified in briefly detaining defendant while conducting the traffic stop and citing the driver. The court also held that the seizure of the firearm from defendant's pocket only seconds after detectives came onto the scene was likewise lawful. View "United States v. Gibbs" on Justia Law

Amodeo pleaded guilty to involvement in a criminal scheme to divert his clients’ payroll taxes. He agreed to forfeit many assets, including the ownership of two shell corporations. The district court entered a preliminary forfeiture order that divested Amodeo of those assets. After no third parties asserted an interest in the corporations, the court entered a final forfeiture order that transferred ownership of them to the government. Years later, the corporations were named as defendants in a lawsuit brought by victims of Amodeo’s scheme. The government then successfully moved to vacate the final forfeiture order as to the corporations. Amodeo appealed the partial vacatur on the ground that the district court lacked the authority to enter it. The Eleventh Circuit dismissed his appeal. The partial vacatur caused him no injury, so Amodeo lacks standing to complain about it regardless of whether or not the district court possessed authority. View "United States v. Amodeo" on Justia Law