Opinion ID: 2998593
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: On or about December 21, 2003, in the State and

Text: Eastern District of Wisconsin, LAWRENCE PAUL PETERS, a Native American Indian and the defendant herein, within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, willfully took money from the presence of another by intimidation, specifically, the defendant stole in excess of $30,000 in cash and checks from the Hillstop convenience store after threatening the clerk with a section of PVC pipe and locking the clerk in an office. All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1153(a) and 2111. [on the next page] Sentencing Allegations 1. With respect to Count One of the indictment:
brandishing a dangerous weapon. See U.S.S.G. §2B3.1(b)(2)(E). b. The defendant physically restrained a person to facilitate escape. See U.S.S.G. §2B3.1(b)(4)(B). c. The defendant took property valued at more than $10,000.00. See U.S.S.G. §2B3.1(b)(7)(B). The district court read part of the superceding indictment to prospective jurors during voir dire. However, after a verbatim reading of the allegation involving the violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1153(a) and 2111, the district court— without mentioning sentencing—stated that there are “additional allegations in the indictment, which will be addressed, if necessary, in the verdict . . . . These are allegations that the defendant committed the offense while brandishing a dangerous weapon; that the defendant physically restrained a person to facilitate his escape; and that the defendant took property valued at more than ten thousand dollars.” Before and after reading the indictment, the district court 6 No. 04-3913 admonished the prospective jurors that the indictment itself was not evidence and could not be used to infer guilt. After a two-day trial, the district court instructed the jury as to the robbery charge, and submitted a special verdict form for each of the sentencing allegations. The court cautioned that the questions in the special verdict forms should only be considered if the jury found Peters guilty of robbery. After posing the questions, the special interrogatories concluded: In order to answer any of these questions “yes,” the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the answer to the question should be “yes”. If the evidence does not convince you beyond a reasonable doubt that the answer should be “yes”, you must answer the question “no.” Peters did not object. The jury found Peters guilty of robbery and answered “yes” to the special interrogatories. Despite failing to object on either issue, Peters moved for a new trial, unsuccessfully, arguing that the sentencing allegations and special verdict questions unfairly prejudiced him. At sentencing, following our decision in Booker, the district court concluded the Guidelines were advisory and sentenced Peters to 72 months’ imprisonment followed by 3 years of supervised release and ordered restitution in the amount of $18,787.29. Alternatively, the district court imposed a mandatory sentence of 110 month imprisonment pursuant to the Guidelines. The Supreme Court subsequently affirmed Booker, 125 S. Ct. at 746, which nullified the 110-month sentence mandated by the Guidelines. On appeal, Peters seeks to overturn his conviction and obtain a new trial for two reasons: first, the district court should have granted his motion to suppress his confession because he had invoked his right to an attorney; No. 04-3913 7 and second, the sentencing allegations in the indictment and jury instructions constituted plain error.