Lindsey: Tip with corroborration sufficient for detention

In U.S. v. Lindsey, No. 05-11273 (March 27, 2007), the Court (2-1, Barkett, J., dissenting), the court affirmed the conviction and 300-month sentence of a defendant convicted of being a felon in possession of one or more rounds of ammunition.
The Court affirmed the denial of a motion to suppress, finding that there was sufficient reasonable suspicion of criminal behavior to justify the defendant’s detention. The police received a tip from a person who identified himself as "Davis" reporting that four black males were loading guns and putting them in a large white SUV parked at a gas station across from a bank. The police had been investigating a series of armed bank robberies by three or four blacks who entered banks with assault weapons and drove SUV-type vehicles. The police went to the scene and saw a white Ford SUV parked behind the gas station, with four black occupants, which moved when a police vehicle came into view. The police shouted to the individuals to get on the ground. Police converged. The defendant was arrested.
The Court distinguished Florida v. J.L., 120 S.Ct. 1375 (2000), finding that the police here had more than an inchoate and unparticularized suspicion based on an anonymous tip. The tip was consistent with an ongoing investigation. Further, the movement of the SUV when the police vehicle came into view gave rise to further suspicion.
The Court further found that probably cause supported the defendant’s subsequent arrest. After the police had detained the four occupants of the SUV, an armored car pulled up to the bank, and guards loaded money into it. The four men were convicted felons. Peering through the tinted windows the SUV, police saw what they believed was a rifle bag.
The Court further rejected defendant’s challenge to the search of the vehicle, noting the applicability of the automobile exception to the warrant requirement.
The Court found no Brady violation in the destruction of a fingerprint card which, the police claimed, contained no valuable information.
Finally, the Court affirmed the district court’s admission of uncharged criminal activity, namely defendant’s plan to rob a bank, at trial. This evidence was "inextricably intertwined" with the charged conduct.
Finally, the Court found no error in the 300-months sentence reliance on uncharged criminal activity, or on prior convictions.

Jimenez: Court denies certificate of appealability

In Jimenez v. Dep’t of Corrections, No. 06-14523 (March 23, 2007), the Court denied a certificate of appealability to a Florida death row inmate who claimed that the Florida Supreme Court failed to apply retroactively a defense-favorable burglary precedent to him.
The Court noted that Jimenez failed to exhaust his retroactivity claim in the Florida courts, and that he was now barred from doing so in federal court, because his claim would now be procedurally defaulted in Florida state courts, and he had not shown "cause" for the default. Even if his claim were not defaulted, the Court found no constitutional error in the Florida courts’ refusal to apply a precedent retroactively to Jimenez.
The Court found Jimenez’ remaining claims to be procedurally barred, or failed to assert a claim worthy of a certificate of appealability.

Smith: Mere Possession = In Connection

In U.S. v. Smith, No. 06-14077 (March 19, 2007), the Court affirmed the 294-month sentence of a defendant convicted of possession of ammunition by a convicted felon.
Smith, a convicted felon, was stopped in an automobile and seen attempting to conceal a firearm and cocaine. He fled on foot. When arrested, one .38 caliber bullet was found in his pocket, another on the ground where he had thrown it. The sentencing court imposed a sentence enhancement based on the guideline provision which calls for enhancements when ammunition is possessed "in connection with" a drug felony or another felony offense. Smith challenged the enhancement on the ground that the ammunition was not possessed "in connection with" another felony. The Court rejected this argument, concluding that "mere possession" of the ammunition sufficed to make it "in connection with" another felony.
The Court also rejected the argument that the sentencing court erroneously treated the Guidelines as mandatory, noting the Court’s reference to the "advisory range."

Thompson: Counsel did not adequately consult regarding appeal

In Thompson v. U.S., No. 05-16970 (Mar. 14, 2007), the Court (Tjoflat, Barkett & Kravitch) reversed the denial of a § 2255 motion.
The defendant claimed that his counsel was ineffective for failure to file a notice of appeal. The Court affirmed the district court’s finding that the defendant had not instructed his lawyer to file a notice of appeal. However, the Court found that counsel had not adequately discussed the appeal with his client. Counsel had told the defendant an appeal of his sentence would not be worthwhile, in a five-minute exchange. The Court found that this was not adequate "consultation." Moreover, the defendant was "unhappy" with the sentence he received. This demonstrated a reasonable probability that, had the defendant been adequately consulted, he would have requested an appeal. Hence, counsel was ineffective.

Dingle: No experts on cause of death not ineffective assistance

In Dingle v. Sec. Dep’t of Corrections, No. 05-13408 (March 8, 2007), the Court held that counsel was not ineffective for not calling any expert witnesses regarding the cause of the victim-baby’s death at a second trial, when, at the defendant’s first trial, counsel had called expert witnesses and this first trial ended with a guilty verdict.
The Court found that the tactical decision not to call expert witnesses was meant to focus on the issue of intent rather the issue of causation, and avoiding drawing attention of the brutality of the baby’s injuries.

Gilliam: No Brady violation for death row inmate

In Gilliam v. Sec. Dep’t of Corrections, No. 05-16638 (March 6, 2007), the Court affirmed the denial of habeas relief to a Florida inmate sentenced to death for a 1982 murder.
The Court rejected the argument that the Florida state court erred in not finding a Brady violation in the State’s failure to disclose a police report that indicated that the victim was a prostitute. The Court found that this evidence would not have changed the evaluation of whether the defendant lacked the mental state to commit the murder.
The Court also rejected an ineffective assistance of counsel claim based on his counsel’s opening the door to the defendant’s prior rape conviction. The Court declined to resolve whether this was deficient performance, finding that in any event it did not sufficiently compromise the defense.
The Court finally found nothing unreasonable in the Florida courts’ rejection of the argument that counsel was ineffective at the penalty phase, noting, for example, that counsel could "focus on few points in closing" or even forego a closing argument altogether – and counsel did argue that life imprisonment would suffice as punishment, an argument the jury and the sentencing judge did not adopt.

Gilliam: no Brady violation for death row inmate

In Gilliam v. Sec. Dep’t of Corrections, No. 05-16638 (March 6, 2007), the Court affirmed the denial of habeas relief to a Florida inmate sentenced to death for a 1982 murder.
The Court rejected the argument that the Florida state court erred in not finding a Brady violation in the State’s failure to disclose a police report that indicated that the victim was a prostitute. The Court found that this evidence would not have changed the evaluation of whether the defendant lacked the mental state to commit the murder.
The Court also rejected an ineffective assistance of counsel claim based on his counsel’s opening the door to the defendant’s prior rape conviction. The Court declined to resolve whether this was deficient performance, finding that in any event it did not sufficiently compromise the defense.
The Court finally found nothing unreasonable in the Florida courts’ rejection of the argument that counsel was ineffective at the penalty phase, noting, for example, that counsel could "focus on few points in closing" or even forego a closing argument altogether – and counsel did argue that life imprisonment would suffice as punishment, an argument the jury and the sentencing judge did not adopt.

Taylor: Fictional robbery can violate Hobbs Act

In U.S. v. Taylor, No. 05-14652 (March 6, 2007), the Court held that a Hobbs Act conspiracy by means of robbery can be established even though the object of the planned robbery, cocaine, did not exist, because the robbery was a sting set up by government agents and confidential informants.
The Court held that the fact that the intended victims and narcotics were fictional was irrelevant to whether the Hobbs Act was violated. The interstate nexus was sufficient to establish a violation.

Gordon: Lawrence resolves habeas untimeliness

In Gordon v. Dep’t of Corrections, No. 06-15783 (March 1, 2007), the Court affirmed the denial of a federal habeas petition on grounds that it was untimely under the AEDPA.
The petitioner had relied "on the hope, now forsaken, that the Supreme Court in reviewing [the Eleventh Circuit’s] Lawrence [v. Florida] decision would provide him with some basis for relief." That hope was forsaken because the Supreme Court affirmed the Eleventh Circuit’s holding. Consequently, the petitioner lost on all his arguments. The statute of limitations is not equitably tolled when the failure to file on time is the fault of capital case counsel specially appointed and supervised by Florida courts. Further, the statute of limitations is not tolled during the time a petition for certiorari is pending before the U.S. Supreme Court in state collateral proceedings. The failure of his court-appointed counsel to file more promptly did not constitute an impediment to filing by State action.