Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06057/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06057-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Tommie Virgil Hawkins
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

FILED 

Unit.eel St.at.es Court of Appeals 

Tenth circuit 

DEC 1 9 1990 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 90-6057 

TOMMIE VIRGIL HAWKINS, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

(D.C. No. CR-89-186-W) 

(W. Dist. of Okla.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before BRORBY, BARRETT and EBEL, Circuit Judges. 

Submitted on the briefs: Tommie Virgil Hawkins (Hawkins) 

appeals his jury convictions of one count of conspiring to remove, 

obliterate, alter or tamper with motor vehicle identification 

numbers (VINs) in violation of 18 u.s.c. § 371, thirteen counts 

of removing, obliterating, altering or tampering with VINs in 

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 511, and three counts of possessing with 

intent to sell or otherwise dispose of a motor vehicle, knowing 

that the identification number had been removed, altered, or 

tampered with in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2321. Hawkins was 

* 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: 90-6057 Document: 010110097266 Date Filed: 12/19/1990 Page: 1 
sentenced to serve a period of 27 months concurrent imprisonment 

on each count. 

Hawkins and three co-defendants were charged in an eighteen 

count indictment with operating an illegal "chop shop" or "salvage 

switch" operation, which involved acquiring automobiles and 

automotive parts, changing the VINs or parts numbers, and 

thereafter selling the automobiles or parts with a new VIN or part 

numbers. Hawkins was arrested after a search of his residence, 

shop and surrounding curtilage produced stolen vehicles, "switched 

vehicles" (vehicles with different VINs than those originally 

assigned to the vehicle), automobile parts with obliterated parts 

numbers, along with various decals, tools, rivets, and stamps 

commonly associated with chop shop or salvage switch operations. 

Hawkins' motion to suppress the evidence seized during the 

search of his property was denied. The court also denied codefendant James Ray Hunter's motion for a severance. Thereafter, 

Hawkins and his three co-defendants were tried jointly. 

During the trial the government presented numerous witnesses 

who testified, inter alia, that: they had sold stolen vehicles to 

Hawkins for extremely low prices; the stolen vehicles were 

"switched" and sold; switched stolen vehicles were found in and 

about Hawkins' premises; Hawkins had sold them vehicles which had 

been switched; tools and equipment commonly used in salvage 

switch operations were found on the premises. 

Hawkins testified (R., Vol. IV at pp. 630-99), inter alia, 

that: he was medically retired from a trucking firm where he had 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-6057 Document: 010110097266 Date Filed: 12/19/1990 Page: 2 
worked as a mechanic and trouble shooter for approximately 26 

years; his physical condition had deteriorated until he was almost 

an invalid; for a time he could not be left alone because the 

medication he was taking caused him to get lost; he did not 

conspire to obliterate, alter, or tamper with VINs on motor 

vehicles; he never purchased any wrecked vehicles for the purpose 

of changing VINs and putting them on stolen vehicles; he had never 

removed, altered, or obliterated any numbers on any truck; he had 

never sold a stolen truck to anyone; and he had never ground any 

numbers off any vehicles, engines, or transmissions nor had he 

ever conspired with anyone to engage in such activity. 

The jury returned guilty verdicts against Hawkins on the 

seventeen counts with which he was personally charged. The jury 

also returned guilty verdicts against co-defendants James Hunter 

and Leslie Biggs. Hawkins' motions for judgment of acquittal were 

denied by the court. 

On appeal, Hawkins contends that the district court erred in: 

(1) denying his motion to suppress; (2) denying his motion for 

judgment of acquittal; and (3) applying the Sentencing Guidelines 

(Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, 18 u.s.c. § 3553, et seq.) to the 

charge of conspiracy. 

I. 

Hawkins contends that the court erred in overruling his 

motion to suppress. 

Hawkins argues that: the search warrant was not properly 

issued; the affidavit in support of the search warrant failed to 

recite sufficient probable cause to demonstrate that he was 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-6057 Document: 010110097266 Date Filed: 12/19/1990 Page: 3 
, 

engaged in an illegal activity or that contraband would be found 

at his place of business; and the affidavit, at most, memorialized 

the suspicions of the law enforcement officers. 

The government responded that an examination of the affidavit 

and the search warrant reveals that the magistrate had a very 

substantial basis for concluding that the evidence sought in the 

warrant would be found at the residence and curtilage. The 

government points to the affidavit for the search warrant which 

states that affiant, Ben Hathcock, a special agent with the 

Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the informant, Detective 

Lieutenant Wes Weaver, had been investigating salvage switch 

operations for some time and that Weaver had personally seen 

various vehicles at the location without VINs and license plates. 

In reviewing a district court's denial of a motion to 

suppress, we accept the findings of the district court unless they 

are clearly erroneous. United States v. Arango, 912 F.2d 441, 444 

(10th Cir. 1990) (citing United States v. Berryhill, 880 F.2d 275, 

280 (10th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, _U.S._(1990)). 

Furthermore, we must consider the evidence in the light most 

favorable to the government. United States v. Soto-Ornelas, 863 

F.2d 1487, 1490 (10th Cir. 1988); United States v. Rios, 611 F.2d 

1335, 1344 (10th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 452 U.S. 918 (1981). 

In denying Hawkins' motion to suppress, the court found: 

In the instant motion, the defendant seeks to 

suppress all evidence seized during a search of his 

property. The search was conducted pursuant to a search 

warrant issued by Magistrate .. and the 

defendant has challenged the validity of the warrant on 

the ground that the underlying affidavit fails to recite 

-4-

Appellate Case: 90-6057 Document: 010110097266 Date Filed: 12/19/1990 Page: 4 
j 

sufficient probable cause for the issuance of the 

warrant .. 

* * * Applying this 'totality of circumstances' [Illinois v. 

Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238-239 (1983)] analysis to the 

facts of the case-at-bar, the Court concludes that there 

is sufficient nonconclusory information set forth in the 

affidavit to provide a substantial basis for assessing 

the credibility of the affiant, Ben Hathcock, and the 

reliability of his information and thus, to support 

[the] Magistrate's ... finding of probable cause. 

The affiant, a special agent of the Federal Bureau 

of Investigation, and the informant, Detective Lt. Wes 

Weaver, had been investigating 'salvage switch 

operations' for a period of time. Lt. Weaver had been 

on the defendant's property and had personally observed 

numerous automobile and truck parts ... in various 

conditions and specific vehicles without public vehicle 

identification numbers or license plates. The affidavit 

also reveals that Lt. Weaver had confirmed. that 

defendant Hawkins was not a licensed automobile 

rebuilder. When this information is viewed as a whole 

and in a practical way, the Court finds that it 

demonstrates a fair probability that evidence of a crime 

will be found on the defendant's property. 

(R., Vol. I, Tab 90, pp. 2-3). 

Having carefully reviewed the affidavit of Agent Hathcock, 

and having considered the evidence in the light most favorable to 

the government, we hold that the district court's finding "that 

there is sufficient nonconclusory information set forth in the 

affidavit to .. support Magistrate Argo's finding of probable 

cause" is not clearly erroneous. 

Agent 

information: 

Hathcock's 

he had 

affidavit included the following 

been working on "numerous" chop shop 

investigations for the past nine months; Detective Lieutenant 

Weaver, who had conducted numerous chop shop and salvage switch 

operations, had been investigating Hawkins for the past year and a 

half; Weaver had been advised by the Used Motor Vehicle and Parts 

Commission of Oklahoma that Hawkins was not a licensed auto 

-5-

Appellate Case: 90-6057 Document: 010110097266 Date Filed: 12/19/1990 Page: 5 
rebuilder; Weaver had conducted a burglary investigation at the 

request of Hawkins at his shop; Weaver had observed numerous 

vehicle parts in Hawkins' shop and outbuilding; Weaver had observed 

a number of vehicles on the Hawkins' property, including a 1981 

Ford pickup without a VIN plate or license plate, a 1985 

Chevrolet van with a VIN plate which appeared to have been glued 

on, a 1983 Ford pickup without a VIN plate or license plate; and 

information received from insurance companies indicated that 

several of the vehicles on Hawkins' property had been involved in a 

salvage switch. Hathcock also stated in the affidavit that, 

"[b]ased on my investigation and experience, [four] vehicles 

[found on the premises] would, in all probabilty, indicate a 

shop' and/or salvage switch operation." 

'chop 

We reject Hawkins' contention that the affidavit, "at most," 

memorialized the suspicion of the law enforcement officers. We 

hold that Agent Hathcock's affidavit set forth sufficient probable 

cause to support the belief that Hawkins was engaged in illegal 

activity or that contraband would be found on his premises. 

II. 

Hawkins contends that the district court erred in denying his 

motion for acquittal. Hawkins contends that the evidence "showed, 

at most," that he rebuilt wrecked vehicles without a permit, a 

crime for which he was not charged, and that the evidence was not 

sufficient to sustain his convictions. 

-6-

Appellate Case: 90-6057 Document: 010110097266 Date Filed: 12/19/1990 Page: 6 
Hawkins moved for judgment of acquittal on all eighteen 

counts at the close of the government's case.

1 (R., Vol. III at p. 

469). The district court denied this motion. Thereafter, Hawkins 

presented evidence in his behalf. At the conclusion of the trial, 

Hawkins did not renew his motion for judgment of acquittal on all 

eighteen counts. Rather, Hawkins moved for judgment of acquittal 

only on Count 2 (willfully and unlawfully removing, obliterating, 

and altering or causing the removal, obliteration, and alteration 

of the VIN on a stolen pickup truck). 

As such, Hawkins waived his right to challenge the district 

court's denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal except with 

respect to Count 2. In United States v. Walker, 915 F.2d 1463, 1466 

(10th Cir. 1990), we reiterated the rule that a defendant must 

renew a motion for judgment of acquittal at the conclusion of the 

trial in order to preserve it for appellate review: 

This court has repeatedly held that a defendant who 

moves for a judgment of acquittal at the close of the 

government's case must again make this motion at the 

close of the entire case if he introduces evidence in 

his defense. By presenting such evidence, the defendant 

is deemed to have withdrawn his or her motion and 

thereby to have waived any objection to its denial ... This court will therefore reverse the district 

court's judgment only if there is a manifest error and 

it is necessary to prevent a miscarriage of justice. 

We hold that the district court did not err in denying 

Hawkins' motion for a judgment of acquittal at the close of the 

government's case or in denying his renewed motion for judgment of 

1 We observe that Hawkins was 

those counts. 

-7-

charged in only seventeen of 

Appellate Case: 90-6057 Document: 010110097266 Date Filed: 12/19/1990 Page: 7 
• 

acquittal with respect to Count 2 at the close of the entire case. 

Similarly, we hold that the district court's denial of Hawkins' 

motions for a judgment of acquittal did not give rise to manifest 

error. 

Hawkins renewed only his motion for judgment of acquittal 

on Count 2. Thus, he waived his objection to the district court's 

denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal on the other sixteen 

counts. Moreover, the government presented sufficient evidence 

upon which the jury could find, as it did, that Hawkins had 

willfully and unlawfully removed, obliterated and altered or had 

caused the removal, obliteration and altering of the VIN on a 

stolen pickup as charged in Count 2. Accordingly, we affirm the 

district court's denial of Hawkins' motions for judgment of 

acquittal. 

III. 

Hawkins contends that the district court erred in applying 

the Sentencing Guidelines to the Count I charge of conspiracy. 

Hawkins argues that: 

November 1, 1987; 

the Sentencing Guidelines became effective 

only the conspiracy count was alleged to have 

occurred after the November 1, 1987, effective date; and there was 

no evidence presented during the trial that any illegal activity 

took place after November 1, 1987. 

The government responds that Count 1 alleged four overt acts 

which occurred after November 1, 1987, which directly or 

circumstantially extended the conspiratorial conduct beyond 

-8-

Appellate Case: 90-6057 Document: 010110097266 Date Filed: 12/19/1990 Page: 8 
N mb 1 1987, 2 

ove er , and that the recovery of the vehicles in 

question was well after November 1, 1987. As such, the government 

argues that the evidence clearly demonstrated an ongoing conspiracy 

in which Hawkins personally participated after November 1, 1987, 

subjecting him to a sentence under the Sentencing Guidelines. We 

agree. 

Viewing the evidence, both direct and circumstantial, 

together with the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom, in 

the light most favorable to the government, United States v. 

McKinnell, 888 F.2d 669 (10th Cir. 1990), we hold that the 

government presented sufficient evidence upon which a jury could 

find that Hawkins was an active participant in the ongoing 

conspiracy after the November 1, 1987, effective date of the 

Sentencing Guidelines. Thus, the district court properly applied 

the Guidelines in sentencing Hawkins on the conspiracy charge. 

United States v. Williams, 897 F.2d 1034, 1040 (10th Cir. 1990). 

Moreover, the burden was on Hawkins to show that he withdrew from 

the conspiracy prior to the effective date of the Guidelines in 

order to avoid being sentenced under them. United States v. 

2 These acts included: On or about October 18, 1988, Hawkins 

possessed a stolen Chevrolet Blazer with altered VINs; between 

October 28, 1984, and October 18, 1988, Hawkins removed, 

obliterated, altered or tampered with or caused the removal, 

obliteration, alteration and tampering with the VIN on a 1978 GMC 

pickup truck; between April 13, 1984, and October 18, 1988, 

Hawkins removed, obliterated, altered and tampered with or caused 

the removal, obliteration, alteration and tampering with the VIN 

on a 1981 Chevrolet pickup; and during the period of the 

indictment (October, 1984, up to and including November, 1988) 

Hawkins acquired and/or possessed, inter alia, die stamps, VIN 

plates, roset rivets, and vehicle frame rails and engines with 

altered and/or obliterated vehicle identification numbers. 

-9-

Appellate Case: 90-6057 Document: 010110097266 Date Filed: 12/19/1990 Page: 9 
, 

• Watford, 894 F.2d 665 (4th Cir. 1990). This he failed to prove~ 

AFFIRMED. 

-10-

Entered for the Court: 

James E. Barrett, 

Senior United States 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 90-6057 Document: 010110097266 Date Filed: 12/19/1990 Page: 10