Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02479/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02479-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jimmy J. Bowman
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-2479

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

Jimmy J. Bowman, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: October 25, 2006

Filed: November 8, 2006 

___________

Before MURPHY, BEAM, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

A jury found Jimmy J. Bowman guilty of conspiring to commit a bank robbery

and to use and carry a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence, in

violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 924(c), and 2113(a); attempting to commit a bank robbery

during which a person was assaulted or had his life put in jeopardy by the use of a

dangerous weapon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 and 2113(d); using or carrying a

firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2

and 924(c); and being a felon in possession of ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C.

Appellate Case: 05-2479 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/08/2006 Entry ID: 2107800
1

The Honorable Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri.

-2-

§ 922(g)(1). The district court1 sentenced him to a total of 192 months in prison and

5 years of supervised release.

On appeal, Bowman’s counsel initially moved to withdraw and filed a brief

under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the sufficiency of the

evidence for his convictions. On June 8, 2006, after reviewing the record

independently pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we denied the

withdrawal motion and ordered the attorneys to brief one issue: “is the evidence

sufficient to support Bowman’s conviction for using or carrying a firearm during and

in relation to a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 and 924(c)?” Having

reviewed the briefs on that issue as well as the rest of the record, we now affirm.

In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we must view the

evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, draw all reasonable inferences in

favor of the verdict, and reverse only if no reasonable jury could find the defendant

guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. See United States v. Spears, 454 F.3d 830, 832 (8th

Cir. 2006). 

Bowman argues only one firearm was used or carried during the bank robbery,

and that firearm cannot serve as the basis for the conviction because it was an antique.

We reject this argument. Although the majority of the witnesses testified that only

one firearm was present, one witness–the bank janitor–testified that he thought he saw

two firearms. While the janitor had equivocated in the past about how many firearms

were involved, “the jury has sole responsibility for resolving conflicts or

contradictions in testimony, and we must resolve credibility issues in favor of the

verdict.” Id.

Appellate Case: 05-2479 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/08/2006 Entry ID: 2107800
-3-

Having concluded that the evidence sufficiently supported Bowman's

convictions, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-2479 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/08/2006 Entry ID: 2107800