Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

In this case, the Supreme Court of North Carolina was tasked with interpreting N.C.G.S. § 14-208.12A, which allows for the removal of a registered sex offender from the North Carolina Sex Offender Registry ten years after initial registration. The defendant, Larry Fritsche, had argued that since he had registered as a sex offender in Colorado more than ten years ago, he was eligible for removal from the North Carolina registry. However, the trial court, using precedent set by the case In re Borden, denied his petition, stating that the ten-year period must be completed in North Carolina. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision.Upon review, the Supreme Court also affirmed the lower courts' decisions. The court determined that the term "county" in the relevant statutes refers to a county in North Carolina, not any state. The court also noted that the purpose of the Sex Offender Protection Registration Programs was to protect North Carolina communities, and this protection could not be ensured if sex offenders could avoid registering in North Carolina due to time spent on another state's registry. Therefore, the court held that the term "initial county registration" in section 14-208.12A requires ten years of registration in North Carolina, not simply ten years of registration in any state. View "State v. Fritsche" on Justia Law

The case involves the defendant-appellant, Augusto Valdez, who appealed from his guilty plea and conviction for which he received 120 months' imprisonment, followed by a five-year term of supervised release. Valdez raised two issues: firstly, he asserted that the district court should have granted his motion to withdraw his guilty plea because he conspired only with a confidential source and not a co-conspirator, and that the court did not ensure that he knew he couldn't conspire illegally with a government agent. Secondly, he sought to vacate his sentence because the district court should have, on its own initiative, verified his eligibility for the safety valve under U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the decision of the district court. The court found that Valdez knowingly and voluntarily entered his guilty plea and was not misled about the nature of the conspiracy charge, thereby rejecting his argument that his plea was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent. His argument that he could not be convicted for conspiring only with a government agent was rejected because the facts revealed two true conspirators: Valdez and a Texas source. The court also found that Valdez waived his right to argue for the application of the safety valve because he failed to object to the PSR and requested the mandatory minimum sentence, which was inconsistent with his later argument for the application of the safety valve. View "United States v. Valdez" on Justia Law

The case concerns Junaid Manzoor, who pleaded guilty in 2006 to a felony violation of attempting to distribute harmful material to a minor. As a result of his conviction, he was required to register as a sex offender for life under former section 290 of the Penal Code. Almost 14 years later, the trial court granted his petition to reduce his conviction from a felony to a misdemeanor pursuant to section 17, subdivision (b) of the Penal Code. After the Legislature amended section 290 to provide for a tiered system of registration time periods, Manzoor filed a petition for relief from the registration requirements. The court summarily denied his petition. On appeal, Manzoor argued that due to the amendments to section 290, he was entitled to relief from the registration requirements because the reduction of his felony conviction to a misdemeanor placed him in "tier one" under the statute. The Court of Appeal of the State of California First Appellate District affirmed the trial court's order denying Manzoor's petition for relief. The court held that the reduction of Manzoor’s felony conviction to a misdemeanor did not qualify him for relief from the registration requirements, because subdivision (e) of section 17 of the Penal Code bars courts from granting such relief when the defendant was found guilty of an offense for which lifetime registration is required, and the amendments to section 290 do not reflect a legislative intent to create an exception to this rule. View "People v. Manzoor" on Justia Law

In this case, the Supreme Court of Virginia was asked to interpret Code § 19.2-306.1, a statute enacted in 2021 that addresses the range of punishment a court may impose upon the revocation of a suspended sentence. The defendant, Emily Katherine Delaune, was convicted of three drug offenses in 2019 and was sentenced to six years of incarceration, with four years suspended. After her release, she violated the terms of her probation by using drugs and absconding from supervision. The Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach revoked Delaune's suspended sentence based on these violations and ordered her to serve 60 days of active incarceration.Delaune appealed to the Court of Appeals of Virginia, arguing that under Code § 19.2-306.1, the circuit court was prohibited from imposing more than 14 days of active incarceration based on her technical violations. The Attorney General asserted that Code § 19.2-306.1 did not retroactively apply to Delaune’s probation violations.The Supreme Court of Virginia agreed with the Court of Appeals' ruling that the parties had implicitly agreed to proceed under Code § 19.2-306.1 during the probation revocation hearing, and that the Attorney General was bound by this agreement. The Supreme Court of Virginia also agreed with the Court of Appeals' interpretation of Code § 19.2-306.1, stating that the circuit court could not impose a term of active incarceration based on Delaune’s drug use, which constituted a first technical violation under the statute, and could impose a maximum of 14 days of active incarceration for Delaune’s absconding violation, which was automatically classified as a second technical violation under the statute. The Supreme Court of Virginia affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals, holding that the circuit court erred when it ordered Delaune to serve 60 days of active incarceration. View "Commonwealth v. Delaune" on Justia Law

In the case before the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, the appellant, Brian Jackson, challenged the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his guilty plea for attempted interference with commerce by robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a). Jackson and two co-conspirators had attempted to rob a convenience store, and in the course of the incident, the store was closed for about three hours, causing it to lose $600 in potential earnings. Jackson argued that the record did not sufficiently show that the attempted robbery impacted interstate commerce.The court, however, ruled that Jackson's plea agreement contained sufficient factual admissions to satisfy the Hobbs Act’s commerce element. It noted that Jackson admitted to attempting to rob the store with the intent to affect interstate commerce. In addition, the court found that the temporary closure of the store resulting from the attempted robbery affected interstate commerce, as it depleted the store's assets by $600, impeding its ability to engage in future interstate commerce. The court also inferred from the record that the store likely dealt in goods originating from outside Texas and therefore engaged in interstate commerce.Jackson's argument that he would not have pled guilty if he had known the facts were insufficient under the commerce element was dismissed by the court. The court noted that Jackson had pled guilty despite believing that the facts were insufficient to support the commerce prong, and he had admitted that his purpose in pleading guilty was to avoid potential conviction under a statute carrying longer sentences.The court thus found no reversible error and affirmed the lower court's decision. View "USA v. Jackson" on Justia Law

The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit heard an appeal by Mark Jordan regarding his conviction for armed bank robbery and associated gun charges. The main issue was whether armed bank robbery can be considered a "crime of violence" under a federal gun statute. Jordan argued that armed bank robbery could be committed recklessly, and therefore should not count as a crime of violence.The court, however, found that the federal armed bank robbery statute is divisible into different crimes, and the specific crime that Jordan pleaded guilty to required purpose or knowledge, not recklessness. Therefore, using the modified categorical approach, the court held that armed bank robbery is a crime of violence. The court also held that whenever a federal crime is predicated on committing another crime, the elements of the predicate crime are considered elements of the first crime as well.In regards to the facts of the case, Jordan committed three bank robberies, during two of which he fired a gun. He was charged with three counts of armed bank robbery under 18 U.S.C. § 2113(d) and two gun charges under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). He pleaded guilty to all five counts and was sentenced to 318 months in prison. He later challenged his sentence, arguing that § 2113(d) is not a "crime of violence" under § 924(c), which is what the court ultimately disagreed with. View "USA v. Jordan" on Justia Law

In this case, the Supreme Court of Arkansas affirmed the denial of declaratory judgment and writ of mandamus petitions filed by Charles Sims, an inmate in the Arkansas Department of Correction (ADC). Sims had sought a declaration that he was eligible for parole, contrary to the determination made by ADC. The court affirmed the circuit court's finding that Sims was ineligible for parole according to the Arkansas Code.Sims had pleaded guilty to first-degree murder in 1995 and was paroled in 2007. In 2010, he pleaded guilty to first-degree battery and kidnapping, and was sentenced to concurrent terms of 180 months' imprisonment to run concurrently with his remaining sentence for first-degree murder. ADC records applied section 16-93-609 to Sims’s sentence for battery and kidnapping, determining him ineligible for parole.The court held that Sims had failed to establish a justiciable controversy or that he had a legal interest in the controversy, two prerequisites for declaratory relief. The court also noted that parole eligibility determinations fall within the purview of ADC, not the judiciary. The court further held that the absence of a reference to the parole-eligibility statute in the judgment did not constitute a requirement for parole eligibility.The court also dismissed Sims's argument that section 5-4-501(d)(2) was inapplicable to him, holding that the court has applied the relevant sections when the prior conviction consisted of only one offense. The court concluded that Sims had not established a right to parole eligibility, and therefore had no basis for the issuance of a writ of mandamus. The court affirmed the circuit court's decisions, ruling it did not clearly err or abuse its discretion when it denied and dismissed Sims's petitions for declaratory judgment and writ of mandamus. View "SIMS v. DEXTER PAYNE, DIRECTOR, ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION" on Justia Law

In this case, the petitioner, Cedrick Conway, is awaiting trial on a petition to commit him as a Sexually Violent Predator (SVP) under the Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVPA). In preparation for the trial, he requested a court order directing a Department of State Hospitals (DSH) evaluator to update a previous evaluation of Conway which was done several years earlier and concluded that he did not meet the criteria for commitment as an SVP. The trial court denied the request, believing that the pertinent statute only allows the prosecution (the party seeking commitment) to request an updated evaluation—not the defense. Conway challenged this ruling, leading to the present case.The Court of Appeal of the State of California Second Appellate District Division Five concluded that the trial court had misunderstood the statute. While the SVPA does allow the prosecution to request an updated evaluation from DSH, the court found nothing in the statute that would prohibit the defense from obtaining an updated evaluation if authorized by a court order. The court therefore held that the trial court erred in denying Conway’s request for an updated evaluation based on a mistaken understanding of the statute.The court also rejected the defense’s claim that the prosecution was not entitled to oppose the defense motion for an updated evaluation. The court determined that the trial court has discretion to decide whether to entertain opposition from the prosecution. The court therefore issued a writ of mandate directing the trial court to reconsider Conway’s request for an updated evaluation, taking into account the court's discretion to authorize such an evaluation for the defense. View "Conway v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court dismissing Petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus, holding that the circuit court did not err in concluding that Petitioner had failed to state a ground for the writ.Petitioner pled guilty to rape and aggravated robbery and was sentenced as a habitual offender. In his habeas corpus petition, Petitioner alleged that he was innocent of the offense of rape, that the State maliciously applied the habitual offender statute in violation of the Eighth Amendment, and that the Arkansas statute requiring that he serve 100 percent of his sentence was unconstitutional. The circuit court found that the claims were not cognizable in habeas and noted that parole eligibility falls within the domain of the executive branch. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err. View "White v. Payne" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted a writ of mandamus ordering the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction to produce a copy of a kite that he alleged he had exchanged with the "cashier" of the North Central Correctional Complex (NCCC), where Relator was incarcerated, holding that Relator was entitled to the writ.According to Relator, an NCCC inspector denied Relator's kite request on the ground that she was not responsible for printing kites. After the department denied Relator's grievance Relator brought this mandamus action seeking production of the kite. The Supreme Court granted the writ, holding (1) Relator showed that he had a clear legal right to the requested relief and that the department had a clear legal duty to provide it; and (2) Relator was not entitled to statutory damages. View "State ex rel. Clark v. Ohio Dep't of Rehabilitation & Correction" on Justia Law