Source: https://casetext.com/case/us-v-hopkins-59
Timestamp: 2019-11-11 20:51:55
Document Index: 602930904

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 111', '§ 111', '§ 111', '§ 111', '§ 3161', '§ 111', '§ 111', '§ 111', '§ 111', '§ 111', '§ 111', '§ 111', '§ 111', '§ 924', '§ 924', '§ 924', '§ 111', '§ 924', '§ 111', '§ 111', '§ 924', '§ 924', '§ 111', '§ 924', '§ 111', '§ 111', '§ 111', '§ 924', '§ 111', '§ 111', '§ 924', '§ 924', '§ 924', '§ 924', '§ 924', '§ 111', '§ 111', '§ 924', '§ 924', '§ 3559', '§ 924', '§ 3559', '§ 6', '§ 401', '§ 408', '§ 1010', '§ 3559']

U.S. v. Hopkins, 310 F.3d 145 | Casetext
310 F.3d 145 (4th Cir. 2002)
U.S.v.Hopkins
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth CircuitOct 23, 2002
Although no definitive time period has been set for compliance with the constitutional stricture on trial…
We review a district court's admission of expert witness testimony for abuse of discretion. See United States…
holding that expert testimony that defendant's behavior was consistent with dealing crack was relevant and reliable in light of expert's law enforcement experience and analysis of germane facts in the case
holding that § 111 is a lesser-included offense of § 111(b) because "each and every element of § 111, forcibly assaulting, resisting, opposing, impeding, intimidating, or interfering with an officer, is incorporated within § 111(b), forcibly assaulting, resisting, opposing, impeding, intimidating, or interfering with an officer using a deadly or dangerous weapon"
Summary of this case from United States v. Olthoff
finding the defendant did not timely assert his speedy trial right because he waited until just five days before trial to raise the issue for the first time
Summary of this case from Turner v. Watson
ARGUED: Timothy Joseph Sullivan, Sullivan Sullivan, College Park, Maryland, for Appellant. Ronald Jay Tenpas, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Thomas M. DiBiagio, United States Attorney, James M. Trusty, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.
Hopkins acknowledges that his first motion tolled the speedy trial clock, but he argues that the motion was filed without his authorization. Hopkins raises this contention for the first time in this appeal, though, and it is unsupported by the record. This motion, which requested that evidence of Hopkins' prior convictions be suppressed, was proper and routine for a lawyer representing a client in Hopkins' situation. The government appropriately relied on the motion in assuming that the speedy trial clock was stopped. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1)(F). Additional delay resulted from Hopkins' filing of several motions to extend the time he had to prepare a defense. Thus again the government had no part in any undue postponement of the trial. Because none of the delay in getting to trial was attributable to the government, it cannot be said to have violated Hopkins' statutory right to a speedy trial. Cf. United States v. Grimmond, 137 F.3d 823, 829 n. 7 (4th Cir. 1998) (indicating that delay resulting from defendant's own request for trial continuance would not be counted against the government).
A trial judge's decision on whether to admit testimony of this nature is given the broadest degree of latitude. See United States v. Dorsey, 45 F.3d 809, 814 (4th Cir. 1995). The government established during voir dire that Phillips had extensive experience and training in narcotics investigations. Phillips had been a Montgomery County police officer for ten years and had been a police drug investigator for seven years. Additionally, Phillips received extensive formal training in conducting narcotics investigations. During his testimony, Phillips explained how the materials found in Hopkins' car led him to believe, based on his experience and training, that Hopkins was involved in drug distribution. He testified that the separation of the crack cocaine rocks into separate baggies, as well as the denominations of bills Hopkins was carrying and his possession of a pager, digital scale, and small caliber weapon all led Phillips to conclude that Hopkins was a drug dealer. This testimony both assisted the jury in determining Hopkins' guilt and was properly based on Phillips' observations of the evidence in this case. The district court therefore did not abuse its discretion in allowing this evidence under Rule 702.
Hopkins next argues that the government violated his Fifth Amendment right not to be convicted for unindicted crimes. He rests this claim on the fact that he was convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. § 111(a) but was indicted only for violation of 18 U.S.C. § 111(b). But, "a defendant in a criminal case cannot complain of error which he himself has invited." United States v. Herrera, 23 F.3d 74, 75 (4th Cir. 1994) (internal citation and punctuation omitted). Hopkins specifically requested a jury instruction on the lesser included § 111(a) offense, and he cannot now claim that this instruction was improper. Here, as in Herrera, not only did the defendant explicitly request this very instruction, but "he did so as a matter of sound trial strategy." Id. at 76. And, as in Herrera, any error in the instruction did not taint "the integrity of the judicial process" so as to require a new trial on the basis of an instruction that defendant himself requested. Id. (internal citation omitted).
In fact, conviction for the lesser included felony offense was not error at all. The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure expressly anticipate that a "defendant may be found guilty of an offense necessarily included in the offense charged." Fed.R.Crim.P. 31(c); see also Schmuck v. United States, 489 U.S. 705, 109 S.Ct. 1443, 103 L.Ed.2d 734 (1989). Here, each and every element of § 111(a), forcibly assaulting, resisting, opposing, impeding, intimidating, or interfering with an officer, is incorporated within § 111(b), forcibly assaulting, resisting, opposing, impeding, intimidating, or interfering with an officer using a deadly or dangerous weapon. Because each element of § 111(a) was necessarily charged in the indictment under § 111(b), Hopkins' Fifth Amendment claim is without merit.
Next, Hopkins argues that his two 18 U.S.C. § 111(a) convictions are duplicative and that one of them should therefore be set aside. Hopkins correctly notes that a single act may only give rise to a single conviction. United States v. Burns, 990 F.2d 1426, 1438 (4th Cir. 1993). However, the Supreme Court has specifically held that while a single shot fired at multiple federal officers constitutes only a single offense, multiple shots may support multiple convictions. Ladner v. United States, 358 U.S. 169, 178 n. 6, 79 S.Ct. 209, 3 L.Ed.2d 199 (1958). The evidence presented by the government shows that Hopkins waved his gun at the officers at several points during the chase and shot at them on at least two occasions, both as he drove and as he was stopped in Montgomery County. Witness Nadia Richards testified specifically that after Hopkins hit the school bus, he "fired more than twice" at the officers. Thus, Hopkins engaged in more than one act of forcibly assaulting and resisting a federal officer, and the district court properly found that Counts One and Two were not duplicative.
Hopkins first asserts that when the predicate offense to § 924(c) is separately charged in the indictment, it must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt for the § 924(c) conviction to stand. The indictment returned by the grand jury on Count III charged that Hopkins had used a firearm in connection with a crime of violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), and alleged that this crime of violence was an 18 U.S.C. § 111(b) offense as set out in Counts One and Two of the indictment. Defendant therefore asserts that in order to convict him under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), the jury was required to find that Hopkins had violated 18 U.S.C. § 111(b), and not merely the lesser included offense of forcibly assaulting and resisting under 18 U.S.C. § 111(a). Hopkins insists that while the government need not have linked his § 924(c) offense to another specific crime in the indictment, United States v. Randall, 171 F.3d 195, 208 (4th Cir. 1999), because it did link the charges, the § 924(c) conviction cannot stand without a conviction under § 111(b).
Moreover, a defendant's conviction under § 924(c) "does not depend on his being convicted — either previously or contemporaneously — of the predicate offense, as long as all of the elements of that offense are proved and found beyond a reasonable doubt." United States v. Crump, 120 F.3d 462, 466 (4th Cir. 1997). In Hopkins' case, the jury was explicitly instructed on § 111(b) as the predicate offense, and the evidence was more than sufficient for the jury to find a violation of each and every element. Thus, even if Hopkins had not formally been convicted of either § 111(a) or § 111(b), the jury could still have found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of violating § 924(c) with violation of § 111(b) as the predicate offense. It is irrelevant to this principle whether or not the § 111(b) offense was separately charged.
The Tenth Circuit has specifically addressed this issue in the context of a § 924(c) conviction. See United States v. Hill, 971 F.2d 1461 (10th Cir. 1992) (en banc). In Hill, the defendant was acquitted on every count of the predicate drug trafficking offense. Nonetheless, the court found that a "defendant need not be convicted of the underlying crime in order to be convicted of § 924(c)." Id. at 1464. In fact, "[a] defendant need not even be charged with the underlying crime to be convicted under § 924(c)," so long as the underlying offense is one for which defendant could be prosecuted. Id. Because the evidence was sufficient for a rational trier to find that Hill was guilty of the predicate offense, the fact that the jury did not find him guilty of that offense was irrelevant to the § 924(c) calculus. Id. at 1469. Here, as discussed in part C below, the evidence was more than sufficient for the jury to reasonably find that Hopkins violated every element of § 924(c). Therefore it is irrelevant that the jury did not find in some other count that the same evidence sufficiently supported a § 111(b) conviction.
The evidence presented at trial included the testimony of Dysico that Hopkins "fired several shots at" them; the testimony of Vickers that "on several occasions [Hopkins] discharged that weapon, shooting the weapon towards our vehicle and towards us"; and the testimony of two civilian witnesses who saw and heard multiple shots. Additionally, two forensic experts testified that the indentations in Hopkins' and Dysico's cars were consistent with bullets having been fired from Hopkins' vehicle at the officers. One of these experts also testified to the presence of lead on swabs taken from those indentations, further supporting the contention that the holes were made by bullets. Because this evidence is sufficient to support the greater charge of using a dangerous and deadly weapon while forcibly resisting an officer of the United States under § 111(b), it is also sufficient to support a charge of using a firearm in a crime of violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c).
Hopkins makes the related argument that, because his § 924(c) conviction was in error, the district court incorrectly sentenced him to a life term pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3559(c) when the necessary predicate offenses did not exist. Because we find that he was properly convicted under § 924(c), his sentence under § 3559(c) was also proper.
The court's request for and acceptance of this evidence was well within its discretion. During a sentencing hearing, the wide degree of discretion normally afforded a district court on evidentiary matters is even greater, because the Federal Rules of Evidence do not apply. United States v. Hassan El, 5 F.3d 726, 731 (4th Cir. 1993); see also Fed.R.Evid. 1101(d)(3). A sentencing court may hear any relevant evidence so long as there are sufficient indicia of its reliability. U.S.S.G. § 6A1.3(a). Because the evidence challenged here consisted only of sections of the District of Columbia Criminal Code, there is no question as to its reliability. Therefore, it was not an abuse of the court's discretion to allow the presentation of this evidence to help in resolving a disputed question of law — whether the offenses committed by Hopkins were subject to maximum penalties of at least ten years.
In fact, the statute does not require that predicate state convictions be subject to a maximum term of imprisonment, so long as the offense would have been punishable under § 401(b)(1)(A) or § 408 of the Controlled Substances Act or § 1010(b)(1)(A) of the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act. See 18 U.S.C. § 3559(c)(2)(H)(ii). Thus, the documents were irrelevant even for the purpose for which they were introduced.