Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06207/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06207-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
John Franklin Aycox
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

,, . 

F- Lt.to 

United Sfttq§.~lO'f c,f Ap~,15 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tentl C! .. rnh 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellee, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

JOHN FRANKLIN AYCOX, ) 

) 

Defendant-Appellant. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

JAN 2 ~ 1~91 

&OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 90-6207 

(D.C. No.CR-90-27-T) 

(W. D. Okla.) 

Before HOLLOWAY, Chief Judge, and BARRETT, and TACHA, Circuit 

Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Defendant-appellant John Aycox appeals from his conviction 

for attempted bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). 

He contends he was denied a fair trial by the introduction of 

improper evidence. Defendant also asserts the trial court erred 

in admitting evidence that he was under investigation for other 

bank robberies. Finally, he claims the trial court erred in 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 90-6207 Document: 010110083534 Date Filed: 01/29/1991 Page: 1 
failing to state its reasons for not departing downward from the 

Sentencing Guidelines range of imprisonment. We affirm. 

Defendant was not denied a fair trial by the introduction of 

improper evidence. At trial, defendant objected to Litaker's 

remark that defendant probably purchased cocaine with the funds 

Litaker provided to him. The court upheld this objection and 

admonished the jury to disregard this testimony. It is presumed 

jury members will follow instructions admonishing them not to 

consider certain testimony. See United States Y.!... Lane, 883 F.2d 

1484, 1498 (10th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 110 s. Ct. 872 (1990). 

Mere speculation that the jury did not follow the court's 

admonitions will not overcome this presumption. See United States 

Y.!... Morris, 623 F.2d 145, 148 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 

1065 (1980). Because defendant failed to present any facts 

indicating the jury did not follow the court's instructions, this 

contention is without merit. 

We also conclude the district court did not err in admitting 

evidence that defendant was under investigation for other bank 

robberies. Defendant did not object to the introduction of t his 

testimony at trial and therefore we review for plain error. See 

Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b); United States Y.!... Bowie, 892 F.2d 1494, 

1498 (10th Cir. 1990). Plain error "seriously affect[s] the 

fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings." 

United States Y.!... Young, 470 U.S. 1, 15 (1985). Although the 

admission of this evidence was error, it did not rise to t he level 

of plain error. In United States Y.!... Fritz, 580 F.2d 370, 376 

(10th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 947 (1978), the court rejected 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-6207 Document: 010110083534 Date Filed: 01/29/1991 Page: 2 
the defendant's contenti on that a police officer's statement that 

he knew defendant from "an earlier spree" was so prejudicial as to 

deny the defendant a fair trial. In the present case, 

overwhelming evidence of guilt was presented at trial, includ ing 

the tapes of defendant's meetings with Litaker to plan the 

robbery. We cannot conclude that Litaker's passing reference to 

defendant's possible involvement in other robberies constituted a 

serious prejudicial error affecting the integrity of the 

proceedings. 

Finally, we determine we do not have jurisdiction to consider 

whether the district court erred in not stating its specific 

reasons for refusing to depart downward from the Sentencing 

Guidelines range of imprisonment. See United States Y..!.. Lowden, 

905 F.2d 1448, 1449 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 111 S. Ct. 206 

(1990). We AFFIRM. 

-3-

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Deanell Reece Tacha 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 90-6207 Document: 010110083534 Date Filed: 01/29/1991 Page: 3