October 6, 2021 opinions

Posted on by tadbartlett

Designated for publication

  • U.S. v. Gardner, 20-50481, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • Higginbotham, J. (Higginbotham, Stewart, Wilson), criminal, guilty plea
    • Vacating conviction for possession with intent to distribute a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine, and remanding for district court to hold an evidentiary hearing on defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea.
    • The Court held that the defendant made sufficiently alleged facts such that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea without conducting an evidentiary hearing. Defendant had, pursuant to the advice of his appointed counsel that he could file a motion to suppress evidence from the “knock and talk” search after entering an unconditional guilty plea; and that appointed counsel never filed the motion to suppress, either before or after the guilty plea.
    • Although there was an eight-month window between the entry of the guilty plea and the filing of a motion (by the successor appointed counsel after the first appointed counsel withdrew) to withdraw the guilty plea, the Court held that this should not weigh heavily against the granting of the motion. “[W]here delay is at the hands of appointed counsel called to trial in other cases, delays of a genre inherent in the dynamic of an active, well moving docket, the delay ought not weigh heavily against the defendant. The district court abuses its discretion when it fails to permit a defendant to withdraw a plea rendered involuntary due to counsel’s ineffective assistance.”
    • The Court then held that the facts alleged by the defendant would satisfy the Strickland test for ineffective assistance of counsel, if true, because (1) advice that a motion to suppress could be filed after an unconditional guilty plea was patently wrong, and the procedure for filing a conditional guilty plea was clearly laid out in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure; and (2) but for that advice, the defendant would not have entered an unconditional guilty plea.

Unpublished

  • U.S. v. Guzman, 19-10783, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Owen, Clement, Duncan), habeas corpus
    • Affirming district court’s denial of § 2255 petition for relief from conviction and sentence on finding that petitioner failed to provide adequate support for his allegations.
  • Ornelas v. Hamilton, 19-50681, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Owen, Clement, Duncan), prisoner suit
    • Affirming dismissal of prisoner’s § 1983 claim for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
  • Anton v. US Bank Trust National Association, 20-11159, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Owen, Clement, Duncan), foreclosure
    • Affirming district court’s summary judgment in favor of lender dismissing plaintiff’s claims arising from default on loan and to enjoin foreclosure sale.
  • U.S. v. Espinoza, 20-40853, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Owen, Clement, Duncan), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming 63-month sentence on conviction for smuggling goods from the United States.
  • U.S. v. Foy, 20-50761, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Southwick, Graves, Costa), criminal, compassionate release
    • Dismissing as frivolous appeal from denial of motion for compassionate release.
  • U.S. v. Rivera, 20-50789, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (King, Costa, Ho), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming 264-month sentence on conviction of conspiring to possess with intent to distribute and distribution of methamphetamine.
  • Orellana-Martinez v. Garland, 20-60598, petition for review of BIA order
    • Smith, J. (Jones, Smith, Haynes), immigration
    • Denying Honduran citizen’s petition for review of BIA order dismissing his appeal from the denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture.
  • U.S. v. Porter, 21-10192, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Barksdale, Costa, Engelhardt), criminal, compassionate release
    • Affirming denial of motion for compassionate release.
  • U.S. v. Shelton, 21-40040, appeal from E.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Smith, Stewart, Graves), criminal
    • Granting summary affirmance of conviction, agreeing with government that record is not sufficiently developed to entertain defendant’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.
  • U.S. v. Castillo-Ruelas, 21-50026, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Jones, Duncan, Engelhardt), criminal, compassionate release
    • Dismissing appeal from denial of motion for compassionate release.
  • U.S. v. Hidalgo, 21-60208, appeal from S.D. Miss.
    • per curiam (Barksdale, Costa, Engelhardt), criminal, supervised release
    • Affirming conviction for violation of special conditions of supervised release.
  • Walker v. State of Mississippi, 21-60442, appeal from S.D. Miss.
    • per curiam (Smith, Stewart, Graves), prisoner suit, sovereign immunity, absolute immunity
    • Affirming dismissal of prisoner’s § 1983 claim against the state of Mississippi under sovereign immunity, and against prosecutors under prosecutorial absolute immunity.