Best Defender Bytes:

January 25, 2012

Ex-Correctional Officer Pleads Guilty To Having Sex with Inmate

Filed under: Los Angeles Criminal attorney — Tags: — fayarfa @ 4:07 am

LOS ANGELES – A former correctional officer at the Federal Correctional Complex in Lompoc has pleaded guilty to a charge of having unlawful sexual relations with a male inmate.

Renee Noelle Gutierrez, 42, of Redondo Beach, pleaded guilty yesterday afternoon in United States District Court to a felony charge of sexual abuse of a ward.

At the time of the offense in April 2010, Gutierrez was a prison dorm supervisor responsible for more than 500 inmates. After the illegal sexual conduct was uncovered, but prior to being indicted by a federal grand jury last August, Gutierrez resigned her position.

Gutierrez is scheduled to be sentenced on March 26 by United States District Judge John F. Walter. As a result of the guilty plea, Gutierrez faces a statutory maximum sentence of 15 years in federal prison.

May 10, 2011

Sheriffs Deputy Accused of Engaging in Sex Acts with a Teenage Girl

LONG BEACH – A Los Angeles County Sheriff’s deputy accused of engaging in sex acts with a teenage girl is expected to be arraigned on May 6, 2011. Deputy District Attorney Deborah Escobar of the Justice System Integrity Division said Orlando Denison, 34 (dob 8/16/76), is charged with two felony counts of oral copulation of a person under 18. Denison is expected to appear for arraignment in Department J of Long Beach Superior Court. The defendant was charged on May 5 in case No. NA088848 in a felony complaint for arrest warrant. Officers of the Long Beach Police Department arrested Denison without incident at his residence yesterday afternoon. The alleged offenses, which occurred in July 2010, involve a female relative who was 16 at the time. If convicted as charged, Denison faces a maximum sentence of three years, eight months in state prison. Bail for the defendant is recommended at $100,000.

April 13, 2011

Ninth Circuit Opinions 04-13-11

Filed under: California Chid Pornography Attorney — Tags: , , , — fayarfa @ 3:18 am

1. US vs. Apodaca, No. 09-50372 (4-12-11)(Cudahy [7th Cir.] with Wardlaw; concurrence by W. Fletcher). Lifetime supervision on one count of possession of child pornography was affirmed. However, it was affirmed grudgingly. The opinion rejects the substantive unreasonableness arguments put forth by defendant . The court did consider mitigation (indeed, the sentence of two years was a downward variance); and the court did consider distinctions between sex offenders. The 9th, and especially the concurrence by W. Fletcher, express uneasiness with the Guidelines for possession of child porn and the supervised release terms. It is simply too long and shows little distinctions between types of offenders. The opinion and concurrence provide arguments why lifetime supervised release terms may be inappropriate. However, the imposition here was not an abuse of discretion.

2. Roberts vs. Hartley, No. 10-15760 (Wallace with Kozinski and Silverman). In light of Swarthout vs. Cooke, 131 S. Ct. 859 (2011), the 9th reverses the granting of a habeas relief for misapplication of California’s “some evidence” standard for parole determinations. The Supremes in Swarthout made clear that the liberty interest created by state parole is determined by the state courts. A state liberty interest does not a federal liberty interest make. Federal review of due process is limited to procedural fairness. Here, the petitioner had procedural fairness. Federal courts can not decide whether there was a misapplication of state parole laws in order to grant habeas relief.

April 4, 2011

Ninth Circuit Opinions 04-04-11

Filed under: California Appeals Attorney — Tags: , , , , — fayarfa @ 2:20 pm

1.  US vs. Fasthorse, No. 10-30093 (4-1-11)(M. Smith with Graeber and Fisher).  The defendant appeals a conviction for sexual abuse under 18 USC 2242(2)(B).  The defendant argues there is insufficient evidence and the sentence of 130 months is unreasonable.  The 9th affirms both conviction and sentence.  The victim in the case admits drinking and smoking medical marijuana during the night.  When she woke up, she testified, the defendant was on top of her, having sex.  The defendant argued consent.  The evidence revolved around credibility, and the jury found the victim credible. “Waking up,” reasoned the 9th, implies no consent.  The sentence was within the guidelines, and the court supported the sentence with appropriate reasons.

2.  Cooper v. Neven, No. 08-16973 (4-1-11)(D. Nelson with Hug and McKeown). The 9th considers this habeas appeal.  The 9th remands the Brady and Napue claims for consideration because the denial was not on independent state grounds, but on federal. The other claims were denied.

3.  Wilson v. Knowles, No. 07-17318 (4-1-11)(Noonan with Silverman; dissent by Kozinski).  This is an amended opinion regarding an Apprendi claim.  The state court found facts as to a prior state conviction related to injury. The 9th holds this violates Apprendi.  Kozinski’s dissent goes to the lack of a Supreme court case precisely on point as to assessing facts in the prior state conviction.  He would find that AEDPA requires deference, and so would deny the claim.

Powered by WordPress