Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-06395/USCOURTS-ca10-91-06395-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
John Arthur Hicks
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

,, ,. 

UNITED STATES COURT OF 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

"' 1 L 1-,~-A .... -1. APPEALS Unl1'8d .... <"Alln D~' . Tentt,Ci,e, . 

NOV1i 19lt 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

vs. 

JOHN ARTHUR HICKS, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

No. 91- 6395 

(D.C. No. CR-91-161-W) 

(W.D. Okla.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before BALDOCK and EBEL, Circuit Judges, and LUNGSTRUM,** District 

Judge. 

Defendant-Appellant John Arthur Hicks pleaded guilty to 

possessing a firearm after conviction of a crime punishable by a 

term of imprisonment exceeding one year. 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) (1) . 

The district court found that Defendant possessed the firearm in 

connection with a jewelry store robbery and calculated Defendant's 

guideline sentence pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2K2.l(c) (1) (A) (Nov. 

* 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. 

** The Honorable John W. Lungstrum, United States District Judge 

for the District of Kansas, sitting by designation. 

-1-

Appellate Case: 91-6395 Document: 010110148665 Date Filed: 11/12/1992 Page: 1 
,• 

, 

1991) . 1 The sole issue on appeal is Defendant's claim that the 

evidence was insufficient to find that he possessed the firearm in 

connection with a robbery. Specifically, Defendant claims that 

even though he was present when a robbery took place, there was 

insufficient evidence from which the district court could find 

that he knew about and intended to commit the robbery either as 

principal or as aider and abettor. We have jurisdiction under 18 

U.S.C. § 3742, and we review the district court's finding under 

the clearly erroneous standard to determine whether the finding 

was supported by a preponderance of the evidence. United States 

v. Guadalupe, No. 91-6320, 1992 WL 309220, at *5 (10th Cir. Oct. 

28, 1992). 

To find ~ya preponderance that defendant possessed the 

specific intent to commit the robbery, the district court was 

required to find that Defendant "more likely than not" knew about 

and intended to commit the robbery. See United States v. Athan, 

1 Section 2K2.l(c) (1) (A) cross references U.S.S.G. § 2Xl.l--the 

guideline for conspiracies, attempts and solicitations--if the 

defendant used or possessed the firearm in the commission of 

another offense. Section 2Xl.l(a) directs the sentencing court to 

use the base offense level from the guideline for the substantive 

offense, in this case robbery, plus any adjustments. The base 

offense level for robbery under U.S.S.G. § 2B3.1 is 20. The 

district court increased the level by five because a firearm was 

discharged, U.S.S.G. § 2B3.l(b) (2) (A), increased the level by four 

because the victim sustained serious bodily injury, id. 

§ 2B3.l(b) (3) (B), increased the level by one because the loss was 

more t _han $10,000, id.§ 2B3.l(b)°(6) (B), and decreased the level 

by two for Defendant's acceptance of responsibility for purchasing 

and possessing the firearm, id. § 3El.1. Defendant's offense 

level was 28, with a criminal history category of III, resulting 

in an imprisonment range of 97-120 months. See id. (sentencing 

table). The district court sentenced him to 110 months 

imprisonment, ten months less than the s_tatutory maximum. 

18 U.S.C. §§ 922 (g), 924 (a) (2). 

-2-

Appellate Case: 91-6395 Document: 010110148665 Date Filed: 11/12/1992 Page: 2 
.• 

648 F.2d 669, 678 (10th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1164 

(1982); United States v. Petersen, 611 F . 2d 1313, 1327 (10th Cir. 

1979), cert. denied, 447 U.S. 905 (1980). Defendant's specific 

intent to commit the robbery can be established with 

circumstantial evidence and can be inferred from his conduct. 

United States v. Cox, 929 F.2d 1511, 1514 (10th Cir. 1991); United 

States v. Price, 795 F.2d 61, 63 (10th Cir. 1986). After 

reviewing the record, we hold that the district court's finding 

that Defendant participated in the robbery was not clearly 

erroneous. 

Defendant drove Maurice Fortune from Oklahoma City to 

Wichita, Kansas. While in Wichita, Defendant and Fortune entered 

a jewelry store together, where Defendant asked to see and was 

shown women's wedding ring sets, even though he was already 

marrie . d 2 . After Fortune fired Defendant's recently purchased gun, 

causing injury to a jewelry store salesman, and after Fortune 

grabbed approximately $20,000 worth of jewelry, Defendant fled the 

jewelry store with Fortune, using a stolen vehicle that had been 

previously placed in front of the jewelry store to return to 

Defendant's truck a short distance away. Defendant then remained 

with Fortune after the robbery, enabling Fortune's return to 

Oklahoma City. When arrested and questioned by authorities, 

Defendant offered a number of different explanations regarding the 

trip to Wichita and events that occurred in Wichita, bringing his 

credibility into question. These facts, which are undisputed, 

2 Defendant offered no testimony at sentencing to show that he 

was belatedly purchasing a wedding set for his wife. 

-3-

Appellate Case: 91-6395 Document: 010110148665 Date Filed: 11/12/1992 Page: 3 
, .. 

provide ample evidence for the district court to infer that 

defendant knew about and intended to commit the robbery. 

AFFIRMED. 

-4-

Entered for the Court 

Bobby R. Baldock 

Circuit Judge 

.... 

Appellate Case: 91-6395 Document: 010110148665 Date Filed: 11/12/1992 Page: 4