Opinion ID: 6335617
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Trial, Post-Trial Motions, and Sentencing

Text: After the government rested its case, Fitzpatrick made a motion for acquittal. He renewed his motion for a directed finding of acquittal once jury deliberations were underway. The court promptly denied both oral motions. The jury convicted Fitzpatrick on both counts. Fitzpatrick filed a written post-trial motion for judgment of acquittal and motion for new trial, both of which were denied. The district court proceeded to sentence Fitzpatrick. Looking to Fitzpatrick’s presentence investigation report (“PSR”), No. 21-1286 5 his base offense level was 43 and his criminal history category was III. For Count 1, the probation office recommended one day of imprisonment. For Count 2, the statutory provision was ten years to life, the Guideline provision was life, and the recommended sentence was 240 months’ imprisonment. In reaching its below-Guidelines recommendation, the probation office noted significant mitigating factors in the PSR, including the details of a challenging childhood, a severe learning disability (Fitzpatrick could not read or write), and bullying. The district court adopted the PSR’s Guidelines calculations. Defense counsel requested a 240-month (twenty-year) sentence, aligning with the probation office’s recommendation. The defense pointed to Hendry’s 360-month (thirty-year) sentence as an unequal comparator, given that Hendry’s role in organizing the crime was much more significant and that Fitzpatrick’s minimal criminal history paled in comparison to Hendry’s long history of gang-related criminal activity. The government asked for a life sentence. The court sentenced Fitzpatrick to 432 months (thirty-six years) of imprisonment on Count 2 and one day on Count 1, to run concurrently, as well as three years of supervised release. Leading up to this sentence, the district court acknowledged the extreme difficulties faced by Fitzpatrick growing up, noting, “[i]t really takes my breath away this environment in which you were raised.” In paying special attention to the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities among similarly situated defendants, the district judge acknowledged that he was “trou- bled” that “the co-defendants in this case have received a variety of sentences.” The court found Nieto, who received a life 6 No. 21-1286 sentence, more culpable than Fitzpatrick, given his role as ringleader of this crime and history of extensive gang-related criminal activity. Hendry’s sentence of thirty years was a notable discussion point for the court. The district judge stated: Hendry received a sentence of 30 years. I wasn’t born yesterday. I understand the circumstances. I mean, the government cut a deal with him. You had a bird in the hand. Even though he sent them on, sort of, a wild goose chase here that ended up requiring the government—they actu- ally charged somebody and then had to back- track because they no longer could believe Mr. Hendry…. The government could have moved to withdraw his plea agreement because he was violating its terms. The government decided instead to simply put it in Judge Moody’s capable hands and let him decide what the appropriate sentence would be for him. And he gave him the maximum that he could have given him under the terms of the plea agreement, which was 30 years. It’s worth noting that Mr. Hendry had substantially more criminal history than Mr. Fitzpatrick did, and so, you know, that fact is not lost on me either. The district court went on to dismiss any comparison to Cherry or Landrum as not compelling. Cherry, who received 188 months (over fifteen years), “cooperated, testified, [and] put himself at risk,” making his sentence “entirely defensible.” Landrum, the driver of the car, “played a really passing role in this case, literally driving these guys, like, around the No. 21-1286 7 block.” Even so, he received a 168-month (fourteen-year) sentence. Finally, when choosing Fitzpatrick’s sentence, the district court emphasized the “extreme” and “frightening” level of violence that Fitzpatrick engaged in, acting like he was “in some war movie where you’re firing protective shots to keep your cohorts safe.” The district court also factored in the death of the “terrific young man” and “good father” caused by this crime. The district court concluded that a 432-month (thirtysix-year) sentence of incarceration was “sufficient but not greater than necessary to achieve all of the statutory goals of sentencing.” Fitzpatrick now appeals.