Latest 4 Cases: Barnes v. Security Life of Denver (Civil Procedure), United States v. Mendenhall (Constitutional Law), United States v. Rodriguez ...

Taking Stock: A Review of Justice Stevens’s Last Book and an Appreciation of His Extraordinary Service on the Supreme Court

RODGER CITRON

Rodger D. Citron, the Associate Dean for Research and Scholarship and a Professor of Law at Touro College, Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center, comments on the late Justice John Paul Stevens’s last book, The Making of a Justice: Reflections on My First 94 Years. Citron laments that, in his view, the memoir is too long yet does not say enough, but he lauds the justice for his outstanding service on the Supreme Court.

Read More

Barnes v. Security Life of Denver

Docket: 18-1487

Opinion Date: December 23, 2019

Judge: Mary Beck Briscoe

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Class Action, Contracts, Insurance Law

Plaintiff Robert Barnes filed a putative class action against defendant Security Life of Denver Insurance Company (SLD) alleging that SLD, in the course of administering life insurance policies purchased by Barnes and other similarly-situated class members, breached its contractual duties and committed the tort of conversion by imposing certain administrative costs that were not authorized under the terms of the policies. Jackson National Life Insurance Company (Jackson) moved to intervene, asserting that, as a result of reinsurance agreements entered into by SLD, Jackson was actually the entity responsible for administering Barnes’s policy and numerous other policies listed within the putative class. The district court denied Jackson’s motion. After reviewing the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal, the Tenth Circuit concluded Jackson established the requirements for intervention as of right, and accordingly reversed the decision of the district court and remanded with directions to grant Jackson’s motion to intervene.

United States v. Mendenhall

Docket: 19-7006

Opinion Date: December 23, 2019

Judge: Timothy M. Tymkovich

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

In 2018, a burglar broke into H&H Pawn Gun & Tool (H&H) and stole a substantial amount of property. An inventory revealed that 62 firearms were among the property stolen. Of the 62 firearms, only 13 to 15 were eventually recovered. A subsequent investigation by the sheriff’s office and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives led to Stoney Mendenhall. Numerous pieces of evidence suggested Mendenhall committed the burglary. Notwithstanding this evidence and for reasons not stated in the record, Mendenhall was not charged with burglary. Instead, in a single-count indictment, a grand jury only charged Mendenhall with “knowingly possess[ing], receiv[ing] and conceal[ing] a stolen firearm.” Mendenhall pleaded guilty to knowingly possessing and concealing the firearms listed on the indictment. In the plea colloquy, he did not go further and accept guilt for the burglary or other related acts. Mendenhall did not object to any provision of the PSR at sentencing. The district court sentenced Mendenhall to 34 months’ imprisonment followed by three years of supervised release and ordered Mendenhall to pay restitution to H&H in the amount recommended by the PSR. At issue before the Tenth Circuit in this case was the appropriate scope of the restitution order. Relying on controlling Supreme Court precedent, the Tenth Circuit concluded Congress authorized restitution only “for the loss caused by the specific conduct that is the basis of the offense of conviction.” In ordering restitution for losses related to, but not arising directly from, defendant’s offense of conviction, the district court exceeded the range of restitution authorized by the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act. Accordingly, the Court reversed.

United States v. Rodriguez

Docket: 18-1449

Opinion Date: December 23, 2019

Judge: Carolyn Baldwin McHugh

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Daniel Rodriguez appealed his sentence for a supervised release violation, arguing the district court misapplied Colorado law in determining the grade of his offense under the Guidelines. Rodriguez was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm, and he was sentenced to 51 months’ imprisonment followed by three years’ supervised release. Rodriguez began his term of supervised release on May 10, 2018. On October 4, 2018, Mr. Rodriguez’s probation officer petitioned the district court for an arrest warrant and revocation of Rodriguez’s supervised release, alleging, among other violations, two instances of “possession and use of a controlled substance.” The district court determined, over Rodriguez’s objection, that Rodriguez’s conduct constituted possession of cocaine under Colorado law, an offense punishable by more than one year’s imprisonment, and was therefore a Grade B violation of his supervised release conditions. The district court declined to analyze whether Rodriguez’s conduct would have constituted a Grade B or a Grade C violation under federal law. It sentenced Rodriguez to 21 months’ imprisonment (the Government’s recommended sentence, at the low end of the Grade B range). Explaining its choice of sentence, the district court emphasized the danger Rodriguez posed to the public because of his history of repeated drug use while in possession of a firearm. On appeal, Rodriquez argued the district court improperly classified his conduct as a Grade B violation rather than a Grade C because it wrongly determined his conduct was punishable by a term of imprisonment exceeding one year under Colorado law. Because the district court could have reached the same result by applying federal law, the Tenth Circuit affirmed.

Winn v. Cook

Docket: 19-5013

Opinion Date: December 23, 2019

Judge: Harris L. Hartz

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Applicant Douglas Winn sought a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the denial by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma of his application for relief under 28 U.S.C. 2241. Applicant was charged in Oklahoma state court with domestic abuse (assault and battery) and related offenses. At a pretrial hearing he signed a waiver of his right to a jury trial so that he could qualify for a state mental-health court program. Because he did not complete the program, his case was put back on the trial docket. He then filed a motion in the state trial court for reinstatement of a jury trial, stating his waiver was not knowing, willing, or voluntary. There was no transcript of the pretrial hearing, so the court held an evidentiary hearing. Applicant testified that he had believed he was signing paperwork to enter the mental-health program, rather than signing a waiver, because he did not read the paperwork. He further claimed he did not recall either his attorney or the judge advising him about the waiver. Applicant’s then-attorney testified that although he could not remember specifically discussing the waiver with Applicant, his standard practice was to advise defendants of the rights they were waiving and the permanence of such a waiver. The court determined that the waiver was knowing and voluntary and denied Applicant’s motion. The State responded that Applicant had validly waived his right to a jury trial, and the district court agreed. The court also held: (1) Applicant had exhausted his available state remedies by raising his invalid- waiver claim in the state trial court and then seeking emergency relief from the OCCA on the same ground; and (2) it was not required to abstain from exercising jurisdiction under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). Because the Tenth Circuit held the district court should have abstained, it did not address any other issues.