Clinton Broden and Mick Mickelsen have extensive experience in appellate cases at both state and federal levels.*

Choose a category and click to see some of our results:
Federal Cases
State Cases
Appeals/Habeas Cases
Forfeiture Cases

* RESULTS OBTAINED DEPEND ON THE FACTS OF EACH CASE .

Appeal Case Examples

• Broden & Mickelsen successfully persuade the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, (the highest court for criminal appeals in Texas), to unanimously reverse the decision of the lower court of appeals in State v. Ruffin. At issue was the admissibility of mental impairment evidence in the guilt of innocence phase of the trial when the defendant was not squarely putting insanity at issue. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals rarely rules in favor of the defendant and even more rarely does so by unanimous published decision.
• The client was convicted of distributing obscenity and was sentenced to 30 months imprisonment by United States District Court Judge Barefoot Sanders. The client was represented by Broden & Mickelsen on appeal and, in 2007, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed the conviction.
• The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed the client's conviction for prison escape based upon Mick Mickelsen's argument that the trial judge gave erroneous jury instructions at the trial.
• The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed the client's conviction after finding that the District Court erred in denying the pretrial suppression motion filed by Clint Broden on behalf of the client.
• The client was convicted of conspiring to distribute heroin inside federal prison and was sentenced to prison by United States District Court Judge Barefoot Sanders. The client was represented by Broden & Mickelsen on appeal and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed the conviction.
  The client had been sentenced to fifteen months imprisonment but the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed the sentence because the judge incorrectly applied the federal Sentencing Guidelines. As a result, the client's sentence was reduced from fifteen months imprisonment to probation.
• Client in the Southern District of Texas was convicted of money laundering while represented by different counsel. The client was represented on appeal by Broden & Mickelsen and those convictions were reversed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
• The Texas Court of Appeals in Dallas reversed the conviction of a man charged with escape because he was not properly charged.
• The client, a school teacher, was sentenced before United States District Court Judge Barefoot Sanders but had his sentenced reversed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit based upon errors made by Judge Sanders at sentencing.
• Broden & Mickelsen successfully represented a client on appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit based upon errors by the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee in applying the federal Sentencing Guidelines.

POST-CONVICTION CASES

• Broden & Micklesen represented a client who had been sentenced in state court to 70 years imprisonment for robbery.  In a post-conviction proceeding in federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 22554 (a "2254 motion"), the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed the client's conviction after finding Dallas County prosecutors improperly struck two African-Americans from the jury that heard his case.
• In a federal habeas corpus proceeding, Broden & Mickelsen convinced the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit that the client's prior lawyer was ineffective for failing to pursue certain sentencing guideline arguments and, as a result, the client received a sentence reduction of five years.
  Read an article on this case here
• A client was convicted in a drug case in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana and also appealed his sentence. Later he hired Broden & Mickelsen to review his case to determine if he received ineffective assistance of counsel from his trial or appellate attorney. Clint Broden discovered that the trial attorney and the appellate attorney completely missed an issue which would have established the client was not guilty of the offense for which he was convicted. After Broden & Mickelsen filed a 2255 motion for the client, his conviction was vacated and his prior attorneys were found to have been ineffective.
• A defendant was sentenced to 30 years imprisonment in state court for sexual assault of a minor. After going through several lawyers, the client hired Broden & Mickelsen to file an "11.07 post-conviction writ" for him. As a result, in 2007, the client's sentence was reduced to 10 years imprisonment based upon the argument that the client received ineffective assistance of counsel from his original lawyer.
• The client was sentenced to prison in state court and hired Broden & Mickelsen to represent him in a post-conviction petition. The client prevailed based upon the argument that his prior counsel was ineffective for informing him that he was eligible for boot camp and/or shock probation when, in fact, he was not.
• The client was represented by Clint Broden in a "2254 post-conviction proceeding" in federal court after he was convicted in state court. The state conviction was vacated after the federal court held that the state trial was unfair.
• The client was granted anew appeal in federal court after Clint Broden was able to prove that his former lawyer actually committed perjury and backdated documents that she had sent to the client.
• The client was represented in federal court in a probation revocation hearing and received a sentence of five years imprisonment. In a "2255 post-conviction proceeding," Broden and Mickelsen convinced the Court that she received ineffective assistance of trial and she was immediately released from prison.
• The client was represented in federal court by a then prominent Dallas lawyer. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to prison but his lawyer forgot to preserve his right to appeal his suppression motion. The client was represented by Clint Broden in a "2255 post-conviction" proceeding and was allowed to withdraw his plea.

* RESULTS OBTAINED DEPEND ON THE FACTS OF EACH CASE .

Please contact us to see if we handle your type of criminal matter here>>>