November 18, 2017

Archives for November 14, 2017

Colorado Eminent Domain Practice: The Essential Guide to Condemnation Law and Practice in Colorado

Colorado Eminent Domain Practice, the essential guide to condemnation law and practice in Colorado, will be updated and released this fall. Authored by Leslie Fields, a nationally renowned eminent domain practitioner who retired from Faegre Baker Daniels after 33 years of practice, the updated treatise includes insights into new and important eminent domain case law. On November 16th Ms. Fields will join with current FaegreBD partners, Jack Sperber, Brandee Caswell, and Sarah Kellner, as well as other eminent domain experts, to teach a course entitled Colorado Eminent Domain Practice: Books in Action. The course will draw from the key concepts and developments highlighted in the updated text.

Among the many cases featured in the updated treatise will be last year’s Colorado Court of Appeals decision in Town of Silverthorne v. Lutz, 370 P.3d 368 (Colo. App. 2016). In Lutz, the court upheld the trial court’s exclusion of evidence that the town had received funds from the Great Outdoors Colorado Program (GOCO) for the recreational trail project necessitating the taking of the Lutz property. Even though a state constitutional provision barred GOCO funds from being used to acquire property by condemnation, the court held that evidence of the special funding was not relevant to the town’s authority to condemn the easements under long established case law. The court further reasoned that a condemnation action is a special statutory proceeding that must be conducted according to statutory procedures, and the parties may not raise issues, such as project funding, which would change the character of a condemnation action. The court also stated that while the constitution prohibits GOCO funds from being used to pay the just compensation for condemned property, it does not preclude the use of the funds for other aspects of the project. Therefore, evidence of GOCO funding was properly excluded.

Finally, the Lutz court also rejected the property owners’ argument that evidence of GOCO funding was admissible to show that the town acted in bad faith in deciding that their property was necessary for construction of the trail project. For more on bad faith necessity challenges, as well as the other issues raised in Lutz, refer to the updated Colorado Eminent Domain Practice by Leslie Fields, and register for Thursday’s program using the links below.

CLE Program: Colorado Eminent Domain Practice

This CLE presentation will occur on Thursday, November 16, 2017, at the CLE Large Classroom (1900 Grant St., 3rd Floor) from 9:00 a.m. to 3:15 p.m. Register for the live program here and the webcast here. You may also call (303) 860-0608 to register.

Can’t make the live program? Order the homestudy here — CD Homestudy • Video OnDemandMP3 Audio

Tenth Circuit: Plaintiff’s Request for Immediate Release from Federal Custody Denied Under ACCA’s Enumerated Clause

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion in United States v. Snyder on Thursday, September 21, 2017.

This case arose from Snyder’s request for immediate release from federal custody on the basis that he had already served more than the maximum sentence allowed by law. Snyder argues that the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Johnson v. United States invalidates his sentence enhancement under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA). The district court denied Snyder’s motion, and the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the denial, concluding that Snyder was not sentenced based on the ACCA’s residual clause that was invalidated in Johnson.

In 2004, Snyder pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. A presentence report was prepared and concluded that Snyder was subject to an enhanced sentence as an armed career criminal because he had sustained two convictions for burglary of two residences, and had a conviction of a controlled substance offense. Snyder’s argument that his burglary convictions failed to constitute predicate offenses under the ACCA were rejected by the district court.

In 2015, the Supreme Court decided Johnson. Snyder subsequently filed a motion to vacate his sentence for immediate release, asserting that, following the Court’s decision in Johnson, his burglary convictions no longer qualify as predicate offenses under the ACCA, so he is not an armed career criminal, and his enhanced sentence exceeds the maximum authorized by law.

The Circuit first determined whether the district court erred in concluding that Snyder’s motion was not timely.  By the plain language of the statute in question, the statute allows a motion to be filed within one year of the date on which the rights asserted was initially recognized by the Supreme Court. The Circuit concluded that to be timely, a motion need only to invoke the newly recognized right, regardless of whether the facts of record ultimately support the claim, and found that Snyder’s motion did just that.

The court then discussed whether Snyder had overcome the procedural-default rule, which is a general rule that claims not raised on direct appeal may not be raised on collateral review unless the petitioner can show cause and prejudice.

Cause is shown if a claim is so novel that its legal basis was not reasonably available to counsel at the time of the direct appeal. The Supreme Court has stated that if one of its decisions explicitly overrides prior precedent, then, prior to that decision, the new constitutional principle was not reasonably available to counsel, and defendant has cause for failing to raise the issue. The Johnson claim was not reasonably available to Snyder at the time of his direct appeal, and the Circuit found this sufficient to establish cause.

To establish actual prejudice, the Circuit held that Snyder must show that the error of which he complains is an error of constitutional dimensions and worked to his actual and substantial disadvantage. The Circuit found that Snyder has shown actual prejudice through his argument that the ACCA sentence enhancement is invalid after Johnson. The court concluded this by acknowledging that if Snyder is correct, he should have been sentenced to only ten years maximum, not eighteen as he had been sentenced. The sentence of eighteen years would then be unauthorized under law, creating an actual and substantial disadvantage of constitutional dimensions.

The Circuit next discusses the merits of Snyder’s claim. Snyder alleged that the sentence was imposed under an invalid legal theory and that he was, therefore, sentenced in violation of the Constitution. In order to make a determination, the relevant background of the legal environment at the time of sentencing must be evaluated. The Circuit held that the actual facts of record in this matter offered no basis whatsoever for the notion that the sentence Snyder received was based on the ACCA’s residual clause, rather than its enumerated offenses clause. The Circuit found no mention of the residual clause in the presentence report or any other pleading or transcript. Further, given the relevant background legal environment that existed at the time of Snyder’s sentencing, there would have been no need for reliance on the residual clause. The Circuit concluded that Snyder’s claim failed because the court’s ACCA’s determination at the time of sentencing rested on the enumerated crimes clause rather than the residual clause.

The decision of the district court denying Snyder’s motion is AFFIRMED by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Tenth Circuit: Unpublished Opinions, 11/13/2017

On Monday, November 13, 2017, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued one published opinion and two unpublished opinions.

Hill v. Corizon Health, Inc.

Fletcher v. Lengerich

Case summaries are not provided for unpublished opinions. However, some published opinions are summarized and provided by Legal Connection.