Criminal Law Library Blog

To view these cases distributed by Findlaw.com you must first sign in to Findlaw.com. "Findlaw summaries [may] include opoinions that have not yet been released for publication and may be subject to modification, correction or withdr

U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, April 10, 2008
US v. Vilches-Navarrete, No. 06-1942
Conviction and sentence for cocaine possession in violation of Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act ("MDLEA") and conspiracy to distribute cocaine is affirmed over defendant's claims that: 1) the MDLEA is unconstitutional; 2) the district court lacked jurisdiction; 3) the district court erroneously refused to suppress evidence; 4) there was insufficient evidence to sustain his conviction; and 5) his sentence was unreasonable under Booker; and 6) cumulative errors in the case prejudiced his right to a fair trial.

U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, April 10, 2008
US v. Lopez-Matias, No. 07-1662
An order striking a Notice of Intent to Sentence of Death is vacated where: 1) the U.S. Attorneys' Manual cannot create substantive rights for the defendants; and 2) the district court abused its discretion when it failed to consider or allude to any prejudice caused by the government's failure to abide by District of Puerto Rico Local Rule 144.2(b).

U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, April 09, 2008
McKethan v. Mantello, No. 05-0731
Judgment denying a petition for habeas relief is affirmed where the trial court did not unreasonably apply clearly established Supreme Court precedent in rejecting defendant's claim that his exclusion from the courtroom during a pre-trial conference violated his constitutional rights

U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, April 09, 2008
US v. Hendry, No. 06-5118
Sentence calculation for entering the United States after having been lawfully deported following a conviction of an aggravated felony is affirmed over claims that: 1) the existence of "fast-track-programs" in some districts but not others not only created unwarranted disparities but also violated the parsimony provision of 18 U.S.C. section 3553(a); and 2) the sentencing court placed too much weight on the Guidelines, to the exclusion of other section 3553(a) factors.

U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, April 07, 2008
US v.Kuper, No. 07-1916
In a case involving whether a grant of defendant's motion to dismiss an indictment without prejudice based on a violation of the Speedy Trial Act is appealable, the appeal is dismissed as defendant's claim that the dismissal should have been with prejudice was nonappealable.

U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, April 09, 2008
US v. Smith, No. 06-3112
In a case addressing the constitutionality of a vehicle impoundment under the Fourth Amendment in circumstances in which there was no standardized policy regarding the impoundment and towing of vehicles, the circuit court rules that the constitutionality of a community caretaking impoundment is judged by directly applying the Fourth Amendment, which protects people against "unreasonable" searches and seizures.

U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, April 07, 2008
Barbe v. McBride, No. 06-7550
Denial of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus is affirmed in part where petitioner was not denied the effective assistance of counsel, but vacated where the state circuit court contravened his Sixth Amendment confrontation right by applying a per se rule restricting cross-examination of the prosecution's expert under a rape shield law.

U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, April 10, 2008
US v. Matamoros-Modesta, No. 07-4105
Sentence for illegal reentry is vacated and remanded where the district court erred in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision in Lopez v. Gonzales, 127 S. Ct. 625 (2006), by enhancing defendant's sentence for having previously been removed subsequent to an "aggravated felony" conviction. .

U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, April 11, 2008
US v. Rodriguez-Amaya, No. 06-4514
Conviction for unlawful reentry after deportation by an aggravated felon is affirmed where the time defendant was detained by United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement on administrative charges pending his removal was not detention "in connection with" his arrest, thus defendant's indictment did not violate the Speedy Trial Act.

U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, April 11, 2008
US v. Diaz-Ibarra, No. 07-4420
Sentence for being found in the U.S. after having been deported subsequent to a conviction for an aggravated felony is affirmed where the sentencing judge did not err in applying a sentencing enhancement since violation of former Georgia Code Ann. section 16-6-4 categorically constituted "sexual abuse of a minor," which the Sentencing Guidelines define as a "crime of violence."

U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, April 08, 2008
US v. Gulley, No. 06-41528
Defendant's conviction for murder and aiding and abetting the murder is affirmed over claims that: 1) there was insufficient evidence to prove guilt; 2) the district court improperly excluded evidence of the victim's specific prior acts of violence; 3) the district court refused to conduct an in camera hearing to determine whether his due process rights were violated as a result of pre-indictment delay; 4) he received ineffective assistance of counsel; and 5) he was not present when the district court instructed the jury to continue deliberating.

U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, April 09, 2008
US v. Ramos-Cardenas, No. 06-51383
Defendants' convictions for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute and conspiracy to possess marijuana with intent to distribute are affirmed over claims of error regarding: 1) the sufficiency of the evidence; 2) whether some defendants' Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause rights were violated by admission of the post-arrest statements given by two codefendants, even though a limiting instruction was given to the jury; and 3) whether the district court erred in responding to a jury note during deliberations.

U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, April 10, 2008
Starns v. Andrews, No. 06-30068
Denial of pro se petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus as not timely filed is reversed and remanded where: 1) the state did not demonstrate that petitioner should have learned of the existence and relevance of the victim's former employer's testimony with the exercise of due diligence at his trial; and 2) also, a magistrate judge erred in her calculation of the one-year limitations period under the AEDPA.

U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, April 10, 2008
US v. Bonilla, No. 06-40894
A sentence for being unlawfully present in the United States after deportation is affirmed where: 1) although the district court erred in applying a sixteen-level crime-of-violence enhancement based on defendant's conviction for attempted manslaughter under New York Penal Law section 125.15; 2) nevertheless, because the district court imposed an alternative non-guideline sentence, the advisory sentence did not result from the guideline error and did not require vacatur; and 3) the district court's reasons for the sentence and its application of the statutory sentencing factors were adequate.

U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, April 11, 2008
Buntion v. Quarterman, No. 06-70024
Grant of conditional habeas relief on a claim of judicial bias from a conviction for capital murder and death sentence is vacated and relief denied where: 1) although various comments and actions by the trial judge both on and off the bench were highly improper; nevertheless, 2) under the AEDPA's highly deferential standard, a state habeas court's decision was neither an unreasonable application of controlling Supreme Court precedent, nor did it involve an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented.

U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, April 07, 2008
US v. Highgate, No. 06-1447
A conviction for drug- and firearm-possession charges is affirmed where, although the district court erred in accepting a witness's blanket assertion of the Fifth Amendment privilege without further probing, any resulting error harmless. However, defendant's sentence is vacated and remanded where the district court's equivocation at sentencing made it unclear whether it appreciated its full sentencing discretion. .

U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, April 08, 2008
US v. Luqman, No. 06-3943
A conviction for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon is affirmed over a claim of erroneous denial of a motion to suppress where, given both an officer's reasonable and articulable suspicion that criminal activity was afoot, and the limited scope of the stop, the district court correctly held that the officers did not violate defendant's Fourth Amendment rights. Read more...

U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, April 09, 2008
US v. Dial, No. 06-5519
A sentence for drug- and firearm-related offenses is affirmed where there was a nexus between defendant's flight on a particular date and his conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine, and the other factors required for an enhancement under U.S.S.G. section 3C1.2 for reckless endangerment during flight were satisfied.

U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, April 09, 2008
Benitez v. US, No. 05-2484
In an appeal arising from a 28 U.S.C. section 2255 motion to vacate petitioner's sentence for conspiracy to distribute marijuana and conspiracy to launder money, dismissal of the section 2255 motion is reversed and remanded where: 1) certain statements by petitioner were sufficient to trigger the district court's duty to inquire into the source and nature of his dissatisfaction, and its failure to do so violated his Sixth Amendment right to counsel; and 2) a remand was required for a determination of whether petitioner was entitled to equitable tolling, as the section 2255 motion was untimely filed.

U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, April 11, 2008
US v. Hunt, No. 06-6300, 06-6301
Defendant-physician's convictions for various health care fraud-related offenses are affirmed over claims that: 1) his Sixth Amendment right to present his own witnesses and establish his defense was violated by the government's ensuring that two primary defense witnesses would not be available to testify at trial; 2) the district court erred by refusing to admit exculpatory hearsay statements made by a codefendant; and 3) there was insufficient evidence to support his convictions. However, his sentence is vacated and remanded pursuant to the government's claim that it was substantively unreasonable.

U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, April 11, 2008
US v. Rose, No. 06-1642
A conviction for selling a firearm to a known felon and possessing an unregistered silencer is affirmed over claims of error regarding: 1) the jury's review of certain CD recordings; 2) prosecutorial misconduct; 3) the constitutionality, under the Commerce Clause, of 18 U.S.C. section 922(d)(1); and 4) jury instructions regarding his possession of an unregistered silencer.

U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, April 09, 2008
US v. Sawyer, No. 06-1275
Orders of restitution are affirmed where a judgment of conviction need not contain a schedule of restitution payments to be made during incarceration, and the failure to set payment schedules after release from prison did not constitute plain error.

U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, April 10, 2008
US v. Tejada, No. 07-1395
Conviction for federal drug offenses is affirmed where: 1) police officers were justified in entering defendant's apartment without a warrant; 2) if a search is limited to the area under the defendant's control at the time of his arrest, the fact that it is no longer under his control at the time of the search does not invalidate the search; and 3) the government proved that a warrant would certainly have been issued had it been applied for, thus the inevitable discovery doctrine applied.

U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, April 10, 2008
US v. Samuels, No. 06-3713
Conviction and sentence for aiding and abetting a felon in possession of a firearm are affirmed where: 1) there was sufficient evidence upon which a rational trier of fact could convict defendant beyond a reasonable doubt; 2) evidence regarding beatings sustained by a victim during the felon's possession of the firearm were admissible for the purpose of setting forth a chronology of events; 3) the probative value of certain testimony regarding the beatings outweighed any prejudicial effect; 4) the inclusion of prejudicial evidence was harmless error; and 5) the court properly calculated defendant's sentencing guideline range.

U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, April 07, 2008
US v. Lee, No. 05-4124
Sentence for drug-related offenses is reversed and remanded where: 1) the district court did not feel that it could vary from the sentencing guidelines when nothing "unusual or different" brought the case outside the general heartland of cases; but 2) Kimbrough v. US, 128 S. Ct. 558 (2007), made clear that sentencing courts can consider the crack/powder sentencing disparity "even in a mine-run case".

U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, April 07, 2008
US v. Robe , No. 07-1820
After a probationer violated the terms of his supervised release, sentence to the statutory maximum term of imprisonment followed by an additional period of supervised release is affirmed over claims that: 1) the district failed adequately to consider 18 U.S.C. section 3553(a) in selecting the term of imprisonment; and 2) the sentencing term imposed was substantially unreasonable.

U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, April 07, 2008
US v. Williams , No. 07-1835
In a prosecution for drug-related offenses, denial of defendant's motion to suppress evidence is affirmed where: 1) defendant did not have a legitimate expectation of privacy in a hotel room as a "mere visitor"; and 2) a non-consensual search of the room was justified by the underlying exigent circumstances which were not manufactured by the officers.

U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, April 07, 2008
US v. Brandon , No. 07-1913
Convictions and life sentences for drug-related offenses are vacated in part where: 1) a sentencing guidelines range was not calculated for one count; and 2) the sentence was imposed without any discussion of the sentencing factors of 18 U.S.C. section 3553(a) or explanation of why a life sentence was chosen.

U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, April 07, 2008
US v. Garcia, No. 07-2615
Conviction and sentence for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and aiding and abetting the distribution of methamphetamine is affirmed over defendant's claims that: 1) there was insufficient evidence to support the jury verdict because the government did not prove he had actual knowledge of the underlying offenses; and 2) the sentence constituted a cruel and unusual punishment, in sentencing him to a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment based on factors over which he was without control and knowledge. Read more...

U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, April 08, 2008
Riddle v. Kenma , No. 06-2542
Judgment denying habeas relief as time barred under 28 U.S.C. section 2244(d) is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) the district court did not err in determining that the habeas corpus petition was untimely as it properly began the limitations period under section 2244(d) the day after the direct-appeal mandate issued, tolled it while the state post-conviction proceedings were pending, and did not allow the 90-day period for filing for certiorari; but 2) petitioner may receive the benefit of equitable tolling if he pursued his rights diligently and establishes that he was lulled into inaction through reliance on a court's conduct.

U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, April 08, 2008
US v. Hyles, No. 07-1328
Conviction and life sentence for conspiracy to use interstate facilities to commit murder for hire, aiding and abetting murder for hire, and firearm-related offenses is affirmed over claims that the conviction must be vacated due to: 1) governmental violation of a non-prosecution agreement; 2) insufficient evidence for conviction; 3) a variance between the indictment and the evidence at trial; 4) government misconduct in its closing argument; 5) insufficient jury verdict to impose a life sentence; and 6) two erroneously admitted hearsay statements.

U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, April 08, 2008
Amrine v. Brooks, No. 07-2104
In an action against a prison investigator, deputy sheriff, and prosecution investigator for their investigations which led to plaintiff's conviction for murder and death sentence, brought after he obtained habeas relief, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) the district court did not err in finding that defendants were entitled to qualified immunity; 2) the defendants' actions did not violate plaintiff's Fourth Amendment rights as they were supported by probable cause; and 3) the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiffs request for leave to file a third amended complaint as it would have been futile.

U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, April 08, 2008
Runyan v. Burt, No. 07-2387
Dismissal of petitioner's application for habeas corpus relief is affirmed where the district court: 1) correctly reasoned that petitioner's Iowa application for post-conviction relief was untimely filed as the original application failed to meet the state's filing requirements; and 2) correctly determined that petitioner was not entitled to equitable tolling, as the steps of properly verifying his application were entirely within his control.

U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, April 08, 2008
US v. Green, No. 07-2417
In a case where defendant moved to withdraw his guilty plea on grounds that it was not knowing and voluntary, and the factual basis of brandishing a handgun while forcing a young woman to ride with him to engage in prostitution did not establish a predicate "crime of violence", denial of the motion is affirmed where the district court reasonably determined after the change-of-plea hearing that the stated factual basis for the plea included sufficient evidence to conclude defendant likely committed the underlying offenses charged in the superseding indictment.

U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, April 09, 2008
US v. Engler , No. 06-4157
Conviction and sentence of two defendants for drug-related offenses is affirmed where the district court did not err in denying: 1) a motion to suppress evidence obtained from the execution of search warrant and warrantless search of a person after a canine sniff snowed the presence of drugs in a vehicle; 2) a Frank hearing when the defendant could not establish the requisite preliminary showing of a false or reckless statement or omission which was necessary to a finding of probable cause; or 3) a motion for acquittal in light of the overwhelming weight of evidence to sustain a conviction.

U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, April 09, 2008
US v. McDonald, No. 07-2601
Sentence for bank robbery is affirmed over claims that the district court erred by imposing: 1) a two-level increase for being a leader, organizer, manager, or supervisor of criminal activity under U.S.S.G. section 3B1.1; 2) a two-level increase for attempting to obstruct justice under U.S.S.G. section 3C1.1; 3) a two-level increase for reckless endangerment during flight under U.S.S.G. section 3C1.2; and 4) requiring the instant sentence to run consecutively to defendant's other undischarged terms of imprisonment.

U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, April 10, 2008
US v. Cazares , No. 07-2399
Conviction for conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine is affirmed over claims that: 1) the district court erred by admitting certain testimony as an out-of-court declaration that met the requirements of Fed. Rule of Evid. 801(d)(2)(E) when, in actuality, the testimony was not an out-of-court declaration but the witness's own conclusion based upon the out-of-court declaration; 2) the government failed to show that the out-of-court statements at issue were in furtherance of a conspiracy; and 3) the district court erroneously admitted two out-of-court statements. .

U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, April 10, 2008
US v. Whiting, No. 07-2599
Defendant's sentence for multiple drug and firearm offenses is affirmed in part and remanded in part where: 1) the district court did not err in enhancing his sentence for obstruction of justice, by including too much as relevant conduct, or by not crediting him for a minimal role; but 2) further proceedings were required due to recent retroactive changes in the sentencing guidelines pertaining to crack.

U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, April 11, 2008
US v. Love, No. 07-2181
Conviction for bank robbery is affirmed where: 1) the district court did not abuse its discretion by including cross-examination testimony that would have elicited inadmissible hearsay; and 2) even if the exclusion was erroneous, it was clearly harmless.

U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, April 09, 2008
Richter v. Hickman, No. 06-15614, 06-15776
In habeas proceedings arising after petitioners were jointly convicted of murder, attempted murder, robbery and burglary, denial of habeas relief is affirmed over claims that: 1) they received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial in violation of Strickland; 2) the prosecution suppressed exculpatory evidence at trial in violation of Brady; 3) trial counsel failed to engage in "meaningful adversarial testing" in violation of Cronic; and 4) the trial court violated one petitioner's Eighth Amendment right to a jury trial and Fourteenth Amendment right to due process by providing an incorrect or inaccurate answer to a question of law posed by the jury to the trial court.

U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, April 10, 2008
US v. Vasquez-Ramos, No. 06-50553,06-50694
Denial of defendants' motion to dismiss their indictments for possessing feathers and talons of bald and golden eagles and other migratory birds without a permit in violation of the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA), and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), is affirmed where, pursuant to prior circuit precedent which remains binding, the prosecutions did not violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).

U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, April 11, 2008
US v. Sullivan, No. 06-50710, 06-50714, 07-50087
Defendants' convictions and sentences for mail, wire, and bankruptcy fraud, money laundering, and conspiracy to commit fraud and money laundering are affirmed over claims that: 1) the evidence was insufficient to support the convictions; 2) the government created a prejudicial variance between the indictment and proof at trial; 3) one defendant's trial should have been severed, and 4) the prosecutor engaged in misconduct.

U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, April 07, 2008
Ballard v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, No. 01-17249
In a tax case concerning a taxpayer's alleged fraudulent failure to report and pay taxes for income earned through a kickback scheme, a tax court's decision rejecting the findings of a special trial judge is reversed and remanded where: 1) the special trial judge's finding of fact and credibility determinations were supported by the record and his conclusions in favor of taxpayers were not manifestly unreasonable; and 2) in finding otherwise, the tax court did not give the special trial judge due deference under Tax Court Rule 183.

U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, April 07, 2008
US v. Ellisor, No. 05-14459
Conviction and sentence for mail fraud offenses in selling tickets to those who expected to attend a "Christmas From Around the World" extravaganza is affirmed where the district court: 1) did not abuse its discretion in making certain evidentiary rulings and finding sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to convict the defendant; and 2) neither erred in its imposition of sentencing enhancements nor committed procedural error with respects to an upward departure as to defendant's criminal history category.

U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, April 08, 2008
Alexander v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr., No. 06-12501
Dismissal of habeas petition as barred by the one-year limitations period in 28 U.S.C. section 2244(d)(1) is affirmed as petitioner's Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(c) motion was a request to reduce a legal sentence based on mercy or leniency and did not constitute an application for state post-conviction or other collateral review with respect to the pertinent judgment under section 2244(d)(2) that tolled the limitations period. (Opinion on rehearing)

U.S. D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, April 08, 2008
US v. Reed, No. 06-3048
Conviction and sentence for bank robbery, carjacking and destruction of property are affirmed over defendant's arguments that: 1) the court erred by admitting his allegedly involuntary confession into evidence; 2) in her closing argument the prosecutor improperly compared him to Jesse James and Billy the Kid and vouched for the credibility of a government witness; and 3) the court mischaracterized his criminal history and failed to consider mitigating evidence during sentencing.

Supreme Court of California, April 07, 2008
People v. Pitto, No. 13-9609
Under Penal Code section 12022, where (1) a defendant, while perpetrating a drug offense, knows of the presence and location of a firearm near the drugs, (2) the proximity of the gun to the drugs is not the result of mere accident or happenstance, and (3) the defendant is in a position to use the gun offensively or defensively to aid in the commission of the offense, defendant's purpose for placement of the gun does not negate the arming allegation as construed in People v. Bland, Cal.4th 991, nor warrant special instruction to that effect.

Supreme Court of California, April 10, 2008
People v. Gomez, No. S140612
The crime of robbery occurs when property is forcefully retained in the victim's presence, even when the victim was not present at its initial "caption", or taking. A conviction for robbery is affirmed where, contrary to defendant's claim, he committed a robbery in circumstances in which he seized property from the victim's business while the victim was not present, the victim arrived on the scene before defendant departed and followed him as he was leaving, and then, as the victim followed, defendant shot at him. .

Supreme Court of Texas, April 11, 2008
In the Matter of H.V., No. 06-0005
In an appeal of a suppression order in a juvenile justice case, the court of appeals decision is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) the Supreme Court of Texas had jurisdiction to consider the state's appeal in light of the conflict between the court of appeals' ruling and other courts'; 2) defendant's statement he "wanted his mother to ask for an attorney" was an unambiguous request for an attorney; and 3) coercion of defendant's statement in violation of Miranda did not justify exclusion of physical evidence resulting therefrom.

Supreme Court of Florida, April 10, 2008
Griffin v. State of Florida, No. SC07-168
Retroactive application of the cost provisions of section 939.185, Florida Statutes do not violate federal and state constitutional prohibitions against ex post facto laws because the statute lacks any punitive penalty, and monetary penalties that do not lengthen an offender's sentence do not constitute criminal punishment.

Supreme Court of Florida, April 10, 2008
Garzon v. State of Florida, No. SC06-2235, SC06-2290
In consolidated cases involving the unobjected-to use of the "and/or" conjunctive phrase between the names of defendants in criminal jury instructions, the Supreme Court of Florida finds that the use of "and/or" was error, but that it was not fundamental error as to either defendant in these cases.

California Appellate Districts, April 07, 2008
People v. Woods , No. A116399
An order requiring a defendant to pay restitution to the family of a murder victim even though he was convicted as an accessory after the fact only is reversed where: 1) defendant was not granted probation but sentenced to state prison, and thus the rationale in In re I.M., 125 Cal.App.4th 1195 (2005), and People v. Carbajal, 10 Cal.4th 1114 (1995), did not apply to this case; and 2) the defendant was not convicted of the murder, and a conviction is the predicate for ordering restitution under Penal Code section 1204.4.

California Appellate Districts, April 08, 2008
People v. Navarro , No. F052604
After a negotiated agreement at entry of plea proceedings in which defendant pled no contest to firearm-related charges, defendant's appeal of resulting sentence is dismissed for a failure to secure a certificate of probable cause.

California Appellate Districts, April 08, 2008
People v. Garelick, No. H030976
Conviction for attempted lewd or lascivious act on a child under 14, attempted distribution or exhibition of harmful matter to a minor, and possession of child pornography is affirmed over claims that: 1) trial court committed a number of errors in its instructions to the jury; and 2) conviction for attempting to send harmful matter over the Internet must be reversed because it constituted a state regulation in violation of Commerce Clause and First Amendment right of free speech. .

California Appellate Districts, April 08, 2008
People v. Lessie, No. D050019
A minor may invoke a Fifth Amendment privileges by a request to speak with a parent under the totality of the circumstances test. However, in a case where a minor-defendant was convicted of second-degree murder after the trial court denied a motion to suppress his pretrial admissions made during two custodial interviews, judgment is affirmed nonetheless where: 1) the minor's request to speak with his father was mere circumstantial evidence of his intent to notify his father about an arrest and not an invocation of his Miranda rights; and 2) at no time did the minor refused to answer any questions, request an attorney, or say he would not answer any questions until after he talked to his father.

Texas Criminal Court of Appeals, April 09, 2008
Alberty v. State of Texas, No. 0822-07, 0823-07
A judgment affirming a conviction for aggravated sexual assault of a child is reversed and remanded for consideration of whether the jury charge was erroneous because it did not limit the "on or about" language in regard to the statute of limitations to any date prior to the date of the filing of the indictment, and on or after defendant's seventeenth birthday, thus permitting the jury to convict him on the basis of testimony about numerous offenses alleged to have been committed while he was a juvenile